Open Stack

> > > > [...]
> > > >   * much of the problem with the lavish parties is IMO related to
> > > > the
> > > >     *exclusivity* of certain shindigs, as opposed to devs
> > > > socializing at
> > > >     summit being inappropriate per se. In that vein, I think the
> > > > cores
> > > >     party sends the wrong message and has run its course, while
> > > > the TC
> > > >     dinner ... well, maybe Austin is the time to show some
> > > > leadership
> > > >     on that? ;)
> > > 
> > > Well, Tokyo was the time to show some leadership on that -- there
> > > was no "TC dinner" there :)
> > 
> > Excellent, that is/was indeed a positive step :)
> > 
> > For the cores party, much as I enjoyed the First Nation cuisine in
> > Vancouver or the performance art in Tokyo, IMO it's probably time to
> > draw a line under that excess also, as it too projects a notion of
> > exclusivity that runs counter to building a community.
> 
> Are you sure you're concentrating on the right problem?  Communities
> are naturally striated in terms of leadership.  In principle, there's
> nothing wrong with "exclusive" events that appear to be rewarding the
> higher striations, especially if it acts as an incentive to people to
> move up.  It's only actually "elitist" if you reward the top and
> there's no real way to move up there from the bottom.  You also want to
> be careful about being pejorative; after all the same principle would
> apply to the Board Dinner as well.
> 
> I think the correct question to ask would be "does the cash spent on
> the TC party provide a return on investment either as an incentive to
> become a TC or to facililtate communications among TC members?".  If
> you answer no to that, then eliminate it.

Well the cash spent on those two events is not my concern at all, as
both are privately sponsored by an OpenStack vendor as opposed to being
paid for by the Foundation (IIUC). So in that sense, it's not like the
events are consuming "community funds" for which I'm demanding an RoI.
Vendor's marketing dollars, so the return is their own concern.

Neither am I against partying devs in general, seems like a useful
ice-breaker at summit, just like at most other tech conferences.

My objection, FWIW, is simply around the "Upstairs, Downstairs" feel
to such events (or if you're not old enough to have watched the BBC
in the 1970s, maybe Downton Abbey would be more familiar).

Honestly I don't know of any communication between two cores at a +2
party that couldn't have just as easily happened surrounded by other
contributors. Nor, I hope, does anyone put in the substantial reviewing
effort required to become a core in order to score a few free beers and
see some local entertainment. Similarly for the TC, one would hope that
dinner doesn't figure in the system incentives that drives folks to
throw their hat into the ring. 

In any case, I've derailed the main thrust of the discussion here,
which I believe could be summed up by:

  "let's dial down the glitz a notch, and get back to basics"

That sentiment I support in general, but I'd just be more selective
as to which social events should be first in line to be culled in
order to create a better atmosphere at summit.

And I'd be far more concerned about getting the choice of location,
cadence, attendees, and format right, than in questions of who drinks
with whom.

Cheers,
Eoghan