Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:05:54AM -0800, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:16:34PM -0500, Ruby Loo wrote:
> > On 10 November 2015 at 12:08, Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 11/10/2015 05:45 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> In the last Ironic meeting [1] we started a discussion about whether
> > >> we need to have a mid-cycle meeting for the Mitaka cycle or not. Some
> > >> ideas about the format of the midcycle were presented in that
> > >> conversation and this email is just a follow up on that conversation.
> > >>
> > >> The ideas presented were:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Normal mid-cycle
> > >>
> > >> Same format as the previous ones, the meetup will happen in a specific
> > >> venue somewhere in the world.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I would really want to see you all as often as possible. However, I don't
> > > see much value in proper face-to-face mid-cycles as compared to improving
> > > our day-to-day online communications.
> > 
> > 
> > +2.
> > 
> > My take on mid-cycles is that if folks want to have one, that is fine, I
> > might not attend :)
> > 
> > My preference is 4) no mid-cycle -- and try to work more effectively with
> > people in different locations and time zones.
> 
> ++ that was part of my thought process when I proposed not having an
> official midcycle.
> 
> Another idea I floated last week was to do a virtual midcycle of sorts.
> Treat it like a normal midcycle in that everyone tells their management
> "I'm out for 3-4 days for the midcycle", but they don't travel anywhere.
> We come up with an agenda, see if there's any planning/syncing work to
> do, or if it's all just hacking on code/reviews.
> 
> Then we can set up some hangouts (or similar) to get people in the same
> "room" working on things. Time zones will get weird, but we tend to
> split into smaller groups at the midcycle anyway; this is just more
> timezone-aligned. We can also find windows where time zones overlap when
> we want to go across those boundaries. Disclaimer: people may need to
> work some weird hours to do this well.
> 
> I think this might get a little bit bumpy, but if it goes relatively
> well we can try to improve on it for the future. Worst case, it's a
> total failure and is roughly equivalent to the "no midcycle" option.

I sent a new idea to openstack-dev, and nobody has opinions? :P

I'd like to get consensus on this soon, please do reply if you have
thoughts on this.

// jim