Open Stack

I think that how Docs handles these changes depends largely on whether 
or not we're given a track. I'm aware that we didn't get one in Paris, 
and as a consequence a lot of my team felt it was difficult to get any 
real work done.

Like Sean, I appreciate that it's a difficult decision, but am looking 
forward to hearing how the TC plan to make this choice.

Lana

On 10/01/15 03:06, sean roberts wrote:
> I like it. Thank you for coming up with improvements to the
> summit planning. One caveat on the definition of project for summit
> space. Which projects get considered for space is always difficult. Who
> is going to fill the rooms they request or are they going to have them
> mostly empty? I'm sure the TC can figure it out by looking at the number
> of contributors or something like that. I would however, like to know a
> bit more of your plan for this specific part of the proposal sooner than
> later.
>
> On Friday, January 9, 2015, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thierry at openstack.org');>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     The OpenStack Foundation staff is considering a number of changes to the
>     Design Summit format for Vancouver, changes on which we'd very much like
>     to hear your feedback.
>
>     The problems we are trying to solve are the following:
>     - Accommodate the needs of more "OpenStack projects"
>     - Reduce separation and perceived differences between the Ops Summit and
>     the Design/Dev Summit
>     - Create calm and less-crowded spaces for teams to gather and get more
>     work done
>
>     While some sessions benefit from large exposure, loads of feedback and
>     large rooms, some others are just workgroup-oriented work sessions that
>     benefit from smaller rooms, less exposure and more whiteboards. Smaller
>     rooms are also cheaper space-wise, so they allow us to scale more easily
>     to a higher number of "OpenStack projects".
>
>     My proposal is the following. Each project team would have a track at
>     the Design Summit. Ops feedback is in my opinion part of the design of
>     OpenStack, so the Ops Summit would become a track within the
>     forward-looking "Design Summit". Tracks may use two separate types of
>     sessions:
>
>     * Fishbowl sessions
>     Those sessions are for open discussions where a lot of participation and
>     feedback is desirable. Those would happen in large rooms (100 to 300
>     people, organized in fishbowl style with a projector). Those would have
>     catchy titles and appear on the general Design Summit schedule. We would
>     have space for 6 or 7 of those in parallel during the first 3 days of
>     the Design Summit (we would not run them on Friday, to reproduce the
>     successful Friday format we had in Paris).
>
>     * Working sessions
>     Those sessions are for a smaller group of contributors to get specific
>     work done or prioritized. Those would happen in smaller rooms (20 to 40
>     people, organized in boardroom style with loads of whiteboards). Those
>     would have a blanket title (like "infra team working session") and
>     redirect to an etherpad for more precise and current content, which
>     should limit out-of-team participation. Those would replace "project
>     pods". We would have space for 10 to 12 of those in parallel for the
>     first 3 days, and 18 to 20 of those in parallel on the Friday (by
>     reusing fishbowl rooms).
>
>     Each project track would request some mix of sessions ("We'd like 4
>     fishbowl sessions, 8 working sessions on Tue-Thu + half a day on
>     Friday") and the TC would arbitrate how to allocate the limited
>     resources. Agenda for the fishbowl sessions would need to be published
>     in advance, but agenda for the working sessions could be decided
>     dynamically from an etherpad agenda.
>
>     By making larger use of smaller spaces, we expect that setup to let us
>     accommodate the needs of more projects. By merging the two separate Ops
>     Summit and Design Summit events, it should make the Ops feedback an
>     integral part of the Design process rather than a second-class citizen.
>     By creating separate working session rooms, we hope to evolve the "pod"
>     concept into something where it's easier for teams to get work done
>     (less noise, more whiteboards, clearer agenda).
>
>     What do you think ? Could that work ? If not, do you have alternate
>     suggestions ?
>
>     --
>     Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> ~sean
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>


-- 
Lana Brindley
Technical Writer
Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia
http://lanabrindley.com