Open Stack

I just assumed this whole outfit was ran by some shadowy kabal.  I feel very disillusioned now.

-Matt

On July 2, 2015 2:26:47 PM EDT, Jesse Keating <jlk at bluebox.net> wrote:
>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150702/003545a0/attachment-0001.html>