Open Stack

Good feedback David. I think we'd all agree that the Austin room layout for
that session was totally wrong for what we were trying to do :) The overall
maximum numbers have a pretty big impact on secondary room sizes, depending
on how many tracks you try to have, which is one of the reasons why we're
trying to get a bit of consensus here. My personal view is also that two
tracks is a good number, along with breakouts for specific working groups,
so that people don't end up missing out too much on things where they have
a schedule conflict. Funding travel is a big deal for most operators, given
we also have two summits a year, so maximising useful time is a good thing.

On 1 June 2016 at 20:29, David Medberry <openstack at medberry.net> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis <matt.jarvis at datacentred.co.uk
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
>> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
>> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size.
>>
>
> Two comments, points
>
> 1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very
> poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on the
> floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again,
> primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have
> everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had
> for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind
> of podium and audience layout.
>
> 2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably
> max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size to
> make progress in breakouts.
>
> So, I'm 300ish max.
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160601/fafead65/attachment.html>