[openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit
doug at doughellmann.com
Thu Feb 25 19:47:22 UTC 2016
Excerpts from Jan Klare's message of 2016-02-25 17:43:19 +0100:
> > On 25 Feb 2016, at 15:54, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jan Klare's message of 2016-02-25 15:29:08 +0100:
> >>> On 25 Feb 2016, at 13:39, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:40:27PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>>> Qiming Teng wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Week 1:
> >>>>> Wednesday-Friday: 3 days Summit.
> >>>>> * Primarily an event for marketing, sales, CTOs, architects,
> >>>>> operators, journalists, ...
> >>>>> * Contributors can decide whether they want to attend this.
> >>>>> Saturday-Sunday:
> >>>>> * Social activities: contributors meet-up, hang outs ...
> >>>>> Week 2:
> >>>>> Monday-Wednesday: 3 days Design Summit
> >>>>> * Primarily an event for developers.
> >>>>> * Operators can hold meetups during these days, or join project
> >>>>> design summits.
> >>>>> If you need to attend both events, you don't need two trips. Scheduling
> >>>>> both events by the end of a release cycle can help gather more
> >>>>> meaningful feedbacks, experiences or lessons from previous releases and
> >>>>> ensure a better plan for the coming release.
> >>>>> If you want to attend just the main Summit or only the Design Summit,
> >>>>> you can plan your trip accordingly.
> >>>> This was an option we considered. The main objection was that we are pretty
> >>>> burnt out and ready to go home when comes Friday on a single-week event, so
> >>>> the prospect of doing two consecutive weeks looked a bit like madness
> >>>> (especially considering ancillary events like upstream training, the board
> >>>> meeting etc. which tend to happen on the weekend before summit already). It
> >>>> felt like a good way to reduce our productivity and not make the most of the
> >>>> limited common time together. Furthermore it doesn't solve the issue of
> >>>> suboptimal timing as described in my original email.
> >> I do not think that the other suggestion of two different events solves the issues, but instead moves it to another suboptimal timing issue.
> >>> I'd wager a sizeable number of contributors would outright refuse to attend
> >>> an event for 2 weeks. 6-7 days away from family is already a long time. As
> >>> such, I would certainly never do any event which spanned 2 weeks, even if
> >>> both weeks were relevant to my work.
> >> I don’t think that the suggestion here was to create an event spanning two full weeks. As far as i understand it, the OpenStack summit itself would span nearly the exact same time as before and maybe even less if you decide that you do not want to attend the main summit (or only a part of it), but just the design one (or only a part of it). In addition to that, i think the suggestion of 3 days in the first week and 3 days in the following one is just something we can start a discussion about. I think it would be enough to just have a 2 day main event (maybe Monday and Tuesday) and schedule the design summit with 2 or 3 days directly after that (Wednesday to Thursday or Friday).
> > For most folks the summit now is a work week + 2 days for travel
> > on either side of it, or at least 7 days (some of us travel further
> > than others). Spreading it across 7 full days like this would mean
> I do not understand the 7 days you mention here, since i suggested an event starting Monday and ending Friday, which would mean a total of 5 days. Adding the travel time of two days, means we end up with a total of 7 days, which is exactly the work week you mentioned.
The original proposal started on a Wednesday and ended on a Wednesday,
and I should have been more clear that I was responding to that.
Your proposal of 2 days followed by 3 is what we did before the
contributor portion of the summit needed to grow to allow for more
projects. I think 3 days won't be enough time to be effective.
> > at least 9 days for anyone who needs to be present for the entire
> > event. Given that many technical folks do also need to be present
> > for the conference portion of the event to meet with customers, I
> > think there would likely be quite a few folks for whom this would
> > turn into a very long, tiring, trip where productivity would drop off
> > steeply near the middle.
> > As Thierry pointed out, it's a bit questionable whether there's
> > actually much savings for participants with the extended event.
> > Anyone attending only one half will still need to fly to and stay
> > in the more expensive venues we're using now, so they save nothing.
> > Anyone attending both halves may save the cost of one airline ticket,
> > unless they're going to mid-cycles which we wouldn't be able to
> > eliminate. In which case extending the event *increases* their costs
> > because they end up staying in the more expensive hotel for more
> > nights.
> The difference in nights in comparison to the current summit of 4 days + 2 days travel would be just one night and i do not think than one night in a hotel is more expensive than the expenses for a completely separate event.
The math works, but the shortened contributor event schedule does not.
> > We also have to consider the extra difficulty and expense of trying
> > to book a venue for such an extended time (considering set up and
> > tear down time we need it for longer than we'll be actively using
> > it, even if not by a lot).
> > Doug
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jan
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Daniel
> >>> --
> >>> |: http://berrange.com <http://berrange.com/> <http://berrange.com/ <http://berrange.com/>> -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ <http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/><http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ <http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/>>:|
> >>> |: http://libvirt.org <http://libvirt.org/> <http://libvirt.org/ <http://libvirt.org/>> -o- http://virt-manager.org <http://virt-manager.org/> <http://virt-manager.org/ <http://virt-manager.org/>> :|
> >>> |: http://autobuild.org <http://autobuild.org/> <http://autobuild.org/ <http://autobuild.org/>> -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ <http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/><http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ <http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/>> :|
> >>> |: http://entangle-photo.org <http://entangle-photo.org/> <http://entangle-photo.org/ <http://entangle-photo.org/>> -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc <http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc> <http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc <http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc>> :|
> >>> __________________________________________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org><mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>>?subject:unsubscribe
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev><http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
More information about the OpenStack-dev