Open Stack

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
<berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/22/2016 10:14 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona.
>> >
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Comments, thoughts ?
>>
>> Thierry (and Jay, who wrote a similar note much earlier in February, and
>> Lauren, who added more clarity over on the marketing list, and the many,
>> many of you who have spoken up in this thread ...),
>>
>> as a community guy, I have grave concerns about what the long-term
>> effect of this move would be. I agree with your reasons, and the
>> problems, but I worry that this is not the way to solve it.
>>
>> Summit is one time when we have an opportunity to hold community up to
>> the folks that think only product - to show them how critical it is that
>> the people that are on this mailing list are doing the awesome things
>> that they're doing, in the upstream, in cooperation and collaboration
>> with their competitors.
>>
>> I worry that splitting the two events would remove the community aspect
>> from the conference. The conference would become more corporate, more
>> product, and less project.
>>
>> My initial response was "crap, now I have to go to four events instead
>> of two", but as I thought about it, it became clear that that wouldn't
>> happen. I, and everyone else, would end up picking one event or the
>> other, and the division between product and project would deepen.
>>
>> Summit, for me specifically, has frequently been at least as much about
>> showing the community to the sales/marketing folks in my own company, as
>> showing our wares to the customer.
>
> I think what you describe is a prime reason for why separating the
> events would be *beneficial* for the community contributors. The
> conference has long ago become so corporate focused that its session
> offers little to no value to me as a project contributor. What you
> describe as a benefit of being able to put community people infront
> of business people is in fact a significant negative for the design
> summit productivity. It causes key community contributors to be pulled
> out of important design sessions to go talk to business people, making
> the design sessions significantly less productive.

I'd like to add to the above that having it all in a single week
(business meetings, community meetings, design sesions) can also make
the summit more stresful for some folks, which will likely be all
burned out at the end of it.

>
>> Now, I know you guys put on awesome events, and you have probably
>> thought about this already. The proposal to have the events be
>> back-to-back across a weekend may indeed address some of these concerns,
>> at the cost of the "less expensive city and venue" part of the proposal,
>> and at the cost of being away from my family over yet another weekend.
>
> Back to back crossing over a weekend is just a complete non-starter
> of an idea due to the increased time away & giving up personal time
> at the weekends for work.

+1

I believe a back-to-back option was brought up before the Vancouver
summit as an idea for the Tokyo one. There was close to no good
feedback for it.

Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco