Open Stack

The forums would seem to provide a good opportunity for get togethers during the release cycle. With these happening April/May and October/November, there could be a good chance for productive team discussions and the opportunities to interact with the user/operator community.

There is a risk that deployment to production is delayed, and therefore feedback is delayed and the wait for the ‘initial bug fixes before we deploy to prod’ gets longer.

If there is consensus, I’d suggest to get feedback from openstack-operators on the idea. My initial suspicion is that it would be welcomed, especially by those running from distros, but there are many different perspectives.

Tim

From: Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2017 at 18:58
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles

I think Sean has made some really good points with the PTG setting things off in the start of the year and conversations carrying over to the Forums and their importance. And having a gap at the end of the year as Jay mentioned will give time for those still about to do finishing work if needed and if it's planned for in the individual projects they can have an earlier 'end' to allow for members not being around.

The one year release would help to get 'new' users to adopt a more recent release, even if it's the one from the year previously as there is the 'confidence' that it's been around for a bit and been used by others in production. And if projects want to do incrementals they can, if I've read the thread correctly. Also those that want the latest will just use master anyways as some do currently.

With the move to a yearly cycle I agree with the 1 year cycle for PTLs, though if needed perhaps a way to have a co-PTL or a LT could be implemented to help with the longer duties?

My 2 cents from the peanut gallery:)

Amy (spotz)

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com<mailto:sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:16:35PM +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
> Hey
>
> On 13 December 2017 at 17:12, Jimmy McArthur <jimmy at openstack.org<mailto:jimmy at openstack.org>> wrote:
>
> > Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> >> - It doesn't mean that teams can only meet in-person once a year.
> >> Summits would still provide a venue for team members to have an
> >> in-person meeting. I also expect a revival of the team-organized
> >> midcycles to replace the second PTG for teams that need or want to meet
> >> more often.
> >>
> > The PTG seems to allow greater coordination between groups. I worry that
> > going back to an optional mid-cycle would reduce this cross-collaboration,
> > while also reducing project face-to-face time.
>
>
> I can't speak for the Foundation, but I would think it would be good to
> have an official PTG in the middle of the cycle (perhaps neatly aligned
> with some kind of milestone/event) that lets people discuss plans for
> finishing off the release, and early work they want to get started on for
> the subsequent release). The problem with team-organised midcycles (as I'm
> sure everyone remembers), is that there's little/no opportunity for
> cross-project work.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
This was one of my concerns initially too. We may have to see how things go and
course correct once we have a little more data to go on. But the thought (or at
least the hope) was that we could get by with using the one PTG early in the
cycle to get alignment, then though IRC, the mailing list, and the Forums (keep
in mind there will be two Forums within the cycle) we would be able to keep
things going and discuss any cross project concerns.

This may actually get more emphasis on developers attending the Forum. I think
that is one part of our PTG/Design Summit split that has not fully settled the
way we had hoped. The Forum is still encouraged for developers to attend. But I
think the reality has been many companies now just see the Summit as a
marketing event and see no reason to send any developers.

I can say from the last couple Forum experiences, a lot of really good
discussions have happened there. It's really been unfortunate that there were a
lot of key people missing from some of those discussions though. Personally, my
hope with making this change would mean that the likelihood of devs being able
to justify going to the Forum increases.

Sean

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20171213/0a8f6461/attachment-0001.html>