Open Stack

On 10/10/2016 08:37 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
<snip>
> We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from
> the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time
> for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you
> describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of
> the PTG time?
> 
> It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled,
> because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day.
> We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project
> topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all
> of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all
> teams will necessarily have multi-project topics.
> 
> We could also just say, as I think Thierry was hinting at elsewhere
> in this thread, that each team should publish its own schedule of
> topics using some sort of unconference-like system (notecards on a
> board, etherpad, whatever). That might make it harder to resolve
> conflicts, though.
> 
> What do other folks think?

I feel like when we went down this path for the PTG, one of the
assurances was that it would be unstructured time, like the midcycles,
which is very productive. Having a long running etherpad is fine (and
kind of expected), but I think building timeboxing in before the event
seems odd.

There are so many unknowns here, but taking away one of the primary
things that made midcycles productive for people in teams, to optimize
for track hopping, seems odd.

If there are topics that span teams, there are 2 days up front. Ensuring
there is space to expand topics into there would be good, and not just
make those horizontal effort days.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net