Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-03-09 12:22:08 -0500:
> > On 03/09/2016 11:36 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Colette Alexander's message of 2016-03-08 14:34:19 -0800:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
> > > My interest in attending is based solely on the number of other TC
> > > members going. If a majority go, I feel I need to attend to have a good
> > > common frame of reference for future discussions. If only one or two
> > > folks go and prepare some sort of evaluation, I can skip the trip and
> > > only attend a future course if the evaluators recommend it.
>

I understand that feeling of not wanting to be left out if a majority of
folks are attending - that, I guess, is a side-concern of having seen more
interest in it than I initially expected there would be. Certainly, no one
has done a solid commit yet on the dates - I was going to have to wait
until after the April TC election was over to ask for one, anyhow. By then,
I was hoping to have a few options for itineraries/schedules to send out to
folks to get feedback/preferences on, and figured looking at a sample
schedule(s) might lead some to either decide to skip the trip or be more
interested in attending. Currently, the potential schedules being sent back
and forth between the trainers there have the daytime (8 AM - 5 PM) pretty
booked up with training, with lunch and evenings open, so an accidental
TC-midcycle could definitely occur after-hours. I think
preventing-a-mid-cycle-feeling is also a stronger case for letting TC
members sign up first, but attempting to leave some space open for other
interested members of the community, which I think could only help broaden
the perspectives on all the conversations happening there. As Sean
mentioned, showing up out of obligation rather than genuine interest would
probably be a huge drag for everyone - even skeptics will have an
interest/reason to be there.

I know leading that sort of session is difficult. Is that what
> ZingTrain is offering to do? My understanding from the earlier,
> off-list, discussion was that this was their pre-canned training
> seminar based on one of the books they have available, and not a
> customized facilitation of a discussion about our needs.  Colette,
> can you clarify?


So currently, there are now 3 different 2-day itineraries I've seen, that
I'm ironing out with the trainers (who've spent a few hours on the phone
with me getting background on the community and doing research on the
community on their own) - those itineraries include the standard 2-day
Leading with Zing! training, a brand new Managing Ourselves training, and a
custom 1 day of Leading with Zing! + 1 day Managing Ourselves that I think
might give the most interesting set of shared experiences to start a
conversation about leadership with. FWIW - my understanding of the
activities in the itinerary is that they're inherently structured to be
action/information intake and then group reflection - so there's
conversation built into the training itself. Additionally, I discussed with
them the idea that this would be about facilitating a larger conversation
about the community, to be led by attendees, and they offered to switch up
training on the fly to accommodate where the conversation led and/or add an
extra day post-training with the trainer as facilitator purely to have
reflection/discussion about what comes next. When I thought this might be
6-8 people just before the Summit, that day seemed to not be as necessary
as creating flexibility in the training schedule itself. But if we're
looking at ~14-17 people, and we're not running into the Summit directly
after, it might be more worthwhile. Thoughts on that?


-colette
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160309/299ff7c4/attachment.html>