Open Stack

BoD, unless they feel the need to delegate, at which point then maybe an
Operators committee. But I'd hate to see more committees created.


- jlk

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Matt Fischer <matt at mattfischer.com> wrote:

> Are you proposing an Operators committee or do you mean the OpenStack BoD?
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150702/e550f7ea/attachment.html>