Open Stack

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 13:26 -0500, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >   * 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).

Well, I'm old enough to remember it, yes.  One of the ironies the
series was pointing out was that the social striations usually got
mirrored more strongly downstairs than upstairs (Hudson was a more
Jealous guardian of Mr Bellamy's social status than the latter was).

> 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.

Heh, you'd be surprised.

I don't object to the proposal, just the implication that there's
something wrong with parties for specific groups: we did abandon the
speaker party at Plumbers because the separation didn't seem to be
useful and concentrated instead on doing a great party for everyone.

> 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.

OK, so here's a proposal, why not reinvent the Cores party as a Meet
the Cores Party instead (open to all design summit attendees)?  Just
make sure it's advertised in a way that could only possibly appeal to
design summit attendees (so the suits don't want to go), use the same
buget (which will necessitate a dial down) and it becomes an inclusive
event that serves a useful purpose.

James