Open Stack

+1

On July 2, 2015 2:15:02 PM EDT, Jesse Keating <jlk at bluebox.net> wrote:
>Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision.
>Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host,
>board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems
>overkill
>to me.
>
>Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable?
>
>
>- jlk
>
>On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
>
>> OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the
>> discussion ...
>>
>> Venue selection process.
>>
>> At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to
>make
>> the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :)
>>
>> In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what
>do
>> you think?
>>
>> What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote:
>> > Team,
>> >
>> > It's great to see so much passion! :)
>> >
>> > Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email
>to
>> > wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any
>point.
>> >
>> > =Things we tend to agree on=
>> > "Spirit of the event"
>> > * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want
>to
>> > see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the
>event
>> > should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to
>> > attendance, space for networking with others and sharing
>information
>> > about deployments without fear of vendor harassment.
>> >
>> > Multiple Sponsors
>> > * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with
>only
>> > modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for
>> > operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible.
>> >
>> > Current Schedule Format
>> > * It appeared like the current format is working well in general,
>but
>> > could do with minor tweaks.
>> >
>> >
>> > =Things still under discussion=
>> > Sell Tickets
>> > * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be
>OK,
>> > but the question remains to what extent this should be priced ("low
>> > fee"? $100-200? "cover costs"?). A strong counterpoint was that
>paid
>> > ticketing makes it less accessible (see "spirit"), prevents some
>local
>> > attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted
>that
>> > it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future.
>> >
>> > Break into Regional Events
>> > * A number of viewpoints, ranging from "multiple regional events"
>to
>> > "one event only [maybe with a travel fund]" to "one event that
>moves
>> > around [maybe even outside USA]" to "make it in the centre of USA
>for
>> > easier travel on average".
>> >
>> >
>> > Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company)
>> > * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or
>> > barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event.
>Others
>> > put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy
>attendee
>> > base, and implied that large companies might send too many people.
>> >
>> >
>> > Multiple Tracks
>> > * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks.
>The
>> > ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage.
>> >
>> > Evening Event
>> > * Several people said they found the PHL evening event
>uncomfortably
>> > packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis
>of
>> > cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues.
>> >
>> > Lightening Talks
>> > * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming "show and tell". More
>of
>> > them? Arranged differently? Unclear.
>> >
>> > =Ideas=
>> > * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small.
>> > * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund
>> > * Use Universities during the summer break for venues
>> >
>> > =Open Questions=
>> > * How will the number of attendees grow?
>> > * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events?
>> > * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for
>this
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for
>next
>> >> ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest
>assured
>> >> it is happening.
>> >>
>> >> Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching
>the size
>> >> of event where both physically and financially, only the largest
>> >> organisations can host us.
>> >>
>> >> We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school
>with a
>> >> single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming
>> >> discussion with you about how we scale these events into the
>future -
>> >> since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're
>looking at
>> >> having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format
>of the
>> >> event.
>> >>
>> >> However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had
>a
>> >> company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel
>> >> instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to
>> >> sponsor food.
>> >>
>> >> This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the
>discussion of
>> >> how we want to scale this event :)
>> >>
>> >> So far I've heard things like:
>> >> * "my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship
>with
>> others"
>> >> * "I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at
>the
>> >> ops meetup"
>> >>
>> >> Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding
>of
>> >> what to take this forward with.
>> >>
>> >> So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you?
>> >>
>> >> How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial
>side of
>> >> things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the
>> >> growing numbers of attendees?
>> >>
>> >> Current data can be found at
>> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection
>.
>> >>
>> >> I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events
>have
>> >> only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can
>address
>> >> that issue.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> >>
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> >
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>>
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150702/65c30543/attachment.html>