Open Stack

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:38 AM, German Eichberger
<German.Eichberger at rackspace.com> wrote:
> It looks like the implicit expectation is that devs also need to attend the
> Forums at the summit in addition to the PTG. The Forums, though important,
> hardly made it worthwhile for me to attend the summit (and in fact I skipped
> Sydney). On the other hand some devs got together and hashed out some plans
> for their projects. Personally, I feel the PTG is not working if we also
> have summits – and having two summits and one PTG will make things worse.
> Therefore I propose to scrap the PTG and add “design summits” back to the
> OpenStack summit. As a side effect this will be a better on-ramp for casual
+1. If one of the purpose is to save developers' travel cost, this
idea works. Besides this, it is important for the developers to hear
voice from users/operators who attend the current summits.
> developers who can’t justify going to the PTG and ensure enough developers
> are on-hand to hear the operator’s feedback.
>
>
>
> German
>
>
>
> From: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:15 AM
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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> 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://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Regards
Fred Li (李永乐)