Open Stack

On 03/01/2016 03:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Eoghan Glynn's message of 2016-03-01 02:08:00 -0800:

>> There are a whole slew of folks who work fulltime on OpenStack but
>> contribute mainly in the background: operating clouds, managing
>> engineering teams, supporting customers, designing product roadmaps,
>> training new users etc. TBH we should be flattered that the design
>> summit sessions are interesting and engaging enough to also attract
>> some of that sort of audience, as well as the core contributors of
>> code. If those interested folks happen to also have the gumption to
>> earn an ATC pass by meeting the threshold for contributor activity,
>> then good for them! As long as no-one is actively derailing the
>> discussion, I don't see much of an issue with the current mix of
>> attendees.
>>
>
> I think you're right on all of these points. However, what you might
> not have considered is that _the sheer number of people in the room_
> can derail the productivity of a group of developers arguing complicated
> points. It's not that we want to be operating in the shadows; it is that
> we want to be operating in a safe, creative environment. A room with 5
> friends, 5 acquaintances, and 100 strangers, is not that. But if there
> are only, say, 15 strangers, one can take the time to get to know those
> people, to understand their needs, and make far more progress and be
> far more inclusive in discussions.
>
> What we want is for people to be attending and participating _on
> purpose_.

I think it's pretty unlikely that people would attend the developer summit 
sessions by accident.  :)

It kind of sounds to me like you want to limit the number of 'tourists' that 
aren't actively involved in the issues being discussed, but are just there to 
observe.  Or am I misinterpreting?

Chris