[openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

Anita Kuno anteaya at anteaya.info
Mon Feb 29 17:42:27 UTC 2016

On 02/22/2016 11:06 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> I agree with Daniel + a couple more comments inline.
> On 02/22/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:14:06PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona.
>> Yes, please. Your proposal addresses the big issue I have with current
>> summits which is the really poor timing wrt start of each dev cycle.
>>> The idea would be to split the events. The first event would be for
>>> upstream
>>> technical contributors to OpenStack. It would be held in a simpler,
>>> scaled-back setting that would let all OpenStack project teams meet in
>>> separate rooms, but in a co-located event that would make it easy to
>>> have
>>> ad-hoc cross-project discussions. It would happen closer to the
>>> centers of
>>> mass of contributors, in less-expensive locations.
>> The idea that we can choose less expensive locations is great, but I'm a
>> little wary of focusing too much on "centers of mass of contributors", as
>> it can easily become an excuse to have it in roughly the same places each
>> time. As a non-USA based contributor, I really value the fact the the
>> summits rotate around different regions instead of spending all the time
>> in the USA as was the case earlier in openstcck days. Minimizing travel
>> costs is no doubt a welcome aim for companies' budgets, but it should not
>> be allowed to dominate to such a large extent that we miss representation
>> of different regions. ie if we never went back to Asia because the it is
>> cheaper for the /current/ majority of contributors to go to the US, we'll
>> make it harder to attract new contributors from those regions we avoid on
>> cost ground. The "center of mass of contributors" could become a self-
>> fullfilling prophecy.
>> IOW, I'm onboard with choosing less expensive locations, but would like
>> to see us still make the effort to reach out across different regions
>> for the events, and not become too US focused once again.
> +1 here. I got an impression that midcycles now usually happen in the
> US.

Anyone can view where sprints are held by looking at the sprints page:

As far as stats for non-US based sprints:

Juno sprints: 2/12 outside the US
Kilo sprints: 2/18 outside the US
Liberty sprints: 1/21 outside the US
Mitaka sprints: 7/23 outside the US (two scheduled, yet to complete)

I would attribute having the Ops Meetup in the UK to having two other
events in the UK, Storyboard and the Product WG. Some events have the
ability to affect the location of other events.

As far as diversity (having events outside of the US) we seem to be
improving, so that is heartening to see. I do hope the trend continues.

Thank you,

> Indeed, it's probably much cheaper for the majority of contributors,
> but would make things worse for non-US folks.
>>> The split should ideally reduce the needs to organize separate in-person
>>> mid-cycle events. If some are still needed, the main conference venue
>>> and
>>> time could easily be used to provide space for such midcycle events
>>> (given
>>> that it would end up happening in the middle of the cycle).
>> The obvious risk with suggesting that current mid-cycle events could take
>> place alongside the business conference, is that the "business
>> conference"
>> ends up being just as large as our combined conference is today. IOW we
>> risk actually creating 4 big official developer events a year, instead of
>> the current 2 events + small unofficial mid-cycles. You'd need to find
>> some
>> way to limit the scope of any "mid cycle" events that co-located with the
>> business conference to prevent it growing out of hand.  We really want to
>> make sure we keep the mid-cycles portrayed as optional small scale
>> "hackathons", and not something that contributors feel obligated to
>> attend. IMHO they're already risking getting out of hand - it is hard to
>> feel well connected to development plans if you miss the mid-cycle
>> events.
> This time we (Ironic) tried a virtual midcycle using the asterisk
> infrastructure provided by the infra team, and it worked surprisingly
> well. I'd recommend more teams trying this option instead of trying to
> find a better way of having one more expensive f2f event (even though I
> really like to meet other folks).
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list