Open Stack

Hi all -

I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the 
colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as 
we have to alert our events team.

Thanks!
Jimmy

> Chris Morgan <mailto:mihalis68 at gmail.com>
> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
> Hello Everyone,
>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. 
> There was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of 
> the foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal 
> put forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly 
> do, it looks like we could have a really great combined event in 
> September.
>
> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In 
> the meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd 
> like to declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF 
> YOU OBJECT please speak up by end of week, this week.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Chris Morgan <mihalis68 at gmail.com <mailto:mihalis68 at gmail.com>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Jonathan Proulx <mailto:jon at csail.mit.edu>
> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
> :try.
> :
> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
> :meet and offline discussion. :)
>
> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
> PTG/OpsMidcycle
>
> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
>
> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
> conceptual "what" discussions.
>
> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
> to colocation.
>
> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
> events as cheap and simple as possible.
>
> -Jon
>
> :
> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> :
> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is 
> my +2
> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and 
> agree
> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
> :>
> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least 
> giving
> :> this a try.
> :>
> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 
> <mvanwink at rackspace.com>
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Hey folks,
> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member 
> of the
> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of 
> co-location, but
> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out 
> as I
> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching 
> points.
> :>>
> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, 
> feature
> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, 
> that
> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are 
> HOW the
> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of 
> the focus
> :>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
> :>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I 
> know
> :>> several who have found it valuable.
> :>>
> :>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
> :>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were 
> occurring.
> :>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's 
> purpose
> :>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team 
> (in this
> :>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
> :>> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they 
> have
> :>> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks 
> integrated. For
> :>> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just
> :>> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold.
> :>>
> :>> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> :>> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +0000:
> :>> >>
> :>> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the
> :>> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with
> :>> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends
> :>> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the
> :>> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time?
> :>> >
> :>> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor
> :>> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but
> :>> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the
> :>> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle
> :>> > would be convenient, for sure.)
> :>> >
> :>> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems
> :>> > key.
> :>>
> :>> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that
> :>> one
> :>> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group
> :>> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue
> :>> for
> :>> engaging with everyone in our community.
> :>>
> :>> The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their
> :>> focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work
> :>> items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are
> :>> co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite
> :>> other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of
> :>> expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our
> :>> geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and
> :>> get
> :>> work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to
> :>> maximize
> :>> the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who
> :>> can't
> :>> relate to any specific work group.
> :>>
> :>> Exactly. I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but
> :>> it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG. We 
> need this
> :>> time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum 
> sessions
> :>> (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version. 
> While some
> :>> folks could drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle 
> is just
> :>> that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support 
> across one,
> :>> larger event - it should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the 
> sessions
> :>> Theirry describes above
> :>>
> :>> The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific
> :>> discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum
> :>> sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are
> :>> defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event
> :>> schedule,
> :>> and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of
> :>> attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It
> :>> allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend
> :>> much
> :>> time getting more engaged and contribute back.
> :>>
> :>> Agreed. Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are
> :>> so valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the
> :>> software needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned
> :>> behaviors might have on Operators and users. To Tim's earlier 
> question, no
> :>> I think this change doesn't reduce the need for Forum sessions. If
> :>> anything, I think it increases the need for us to get REALLY good at
> :>> channeling output from the Ops mid-cycle in to session topics at 
> the next
> :>> Summit.
> :>>
> :>> The Ops meetup under its current format is mostly work sessions, and
> :>> those would fit pretty well in the PTG event format. Ideally I would
> :>> limit the feedback-gathering sessions there and use the Forum (and
> :>> regional events like OpenStack days) to collect it. That sounds like a
> :>> better way to reach out to "all users" and take into account their
> :>> feedback and needs...
> :>>
> :>> They are largely work sessions, but independent of the co-location
> :>> discussion, the UC is focused on improving the ability for 
> tangible output
> :>> to come from Ops mid-cycles, OpenStack Days and regional meetups - 
> largely
> :>> in the form of Forum sessions and ultimately changes in the 
> software. So
> :>> we, as a committee, see a lot of similarities in what you just 
> said. I'm
> :>> not bold enough to predict exactly how co-location might change the
> :>> tone/topic of the Ops sessions, but I agree that we shouldn't 
> expect a lot
> :>> of real-time feedback time with devs at the PTG/mid-summit event 
> (what ever
> :>> we end up calling it). We want the devs to be focused on what's 
> already
> :>> planned for the N+1 version or beyond. The conversations/sessions 
> at the
> :>> Ops portion of the event would hopefully lead to Forum sessions on N+2
> :>> features, functions, bug fixes, etc
> :>>
> :>> Overall, I still see co-location as a positive move. There will be 
> some
> :>> tricky bits we need to figure out between to the "two sides" of 
> the event
> :>> as we want to MINIMIZE any perceived us/them between dev and ops - 
> not add
> :>> to it. But, the work session themselves, should still honor the 
> spirit of
> :>> the PTG and Ops Mid-cycle as they are today. We just get the added 
> benefit
> :>> of time together as a whole community - and hopefully solve a few
> :>> logistic/finance/sponsorship/venue issues that trouble one event 
> or the
> :>> other today.
> :>>
> :>> Thanks!
> :>> VW
> :>> --
> :>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> :>>
> :>> _______________________________________________
> :>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> :>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> :>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstac
> :>> k-operators
> :>>
> :>>
> :>> _______________________________________________
> :>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> :>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> :>> 
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> :>>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :> --
> :> Kind regards,
> :>
> :> Melvin Hillsman
> :> mrhillsman at gmail.com
> :> mobile: (832) 264-2646
> :>
>
> :_______________________________________________
> :OpenStack-operators mailing list
> :OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> :http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
> Yih Leong, Sun. <mailto:yihleong at gmail.com>
> March 22, 2018 at 11:02 PM
> I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. 
> Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give 
> it a try.
>
> Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops 
> to meet and offline discussion. :)
>
> On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Melvin Hillsman <mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>
> March 22, 2018 at 9:08 PM
> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very 
> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my 
> +2 since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and 
> agree with them here as I have in individual discussions.
>
> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least 
> giving this a try.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Kind regards,
>
> Melvin Hillsman
> mrhillsman at gmail.com <mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>
> mobile: (832) 264-2646
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Matt Van Winkle <mailto:mvanwink at rackspace.com>
> March 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM
> Hey folks,
> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back 
> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's 
> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of 
> the Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of 
> co-location, but have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point 
> some of that out as I respond to specific comments, but first a couple 
> of overarching points.
>
> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the 
> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, 
> feature and function has made it much easier for an operator to 
> participate effectively in the conversation versus the older, design 
> sessions, that focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. 
> These are HOW the developers should make things work and, now, are a 
> large part of the focus of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and 
> dry, but current model has allowed for this division of "what" and 
> "how" in many areas, and I know several who have found it valuable.
>
> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective 
> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were 
> occurring. The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. 
> While it's purpose was a little different, it's spirit is the same - 
> gather a team (in this case operators) together outside the hustle and 
> bustle of a summit to discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also 
> point out, that they have been good vehicles in the Ops community to 
> get new folks integrated. For the purpose of this discussion, though, 
> one could argue this is just bringing the last mid-cycle event in to 
> the fold.
>
> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +0000:
> >>
> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the
> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with
> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends
> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the
> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time?
> >
> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor
> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but
> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the
> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle
> > would be convenient, for sure.)
> >
> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems
> > key.
>
> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that one
> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group
> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue for
> engaging with everyone in our community.
>
> The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their
> focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work
> items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are
> co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite
> other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of
> expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our
> geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and get
> work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to maximize
> the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who can't
> relate to any specific work group.
>
> Exactly. I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but 
> it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG. We need 
> this time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous 
> forum sessions (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 
> version. While some folks could drift between sessions, co-locating 
> the Ops mid-cycle is just that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and 
> Foundation staff support across one, larger event - it should NOT 
> disrupt the current spirit of the sessions Theirry describes above
>
> The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific
> discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum
> sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are
> defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event schedule,
> and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of
> attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It
> allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend much
> time getting more engaged and contribute back.
>
> Agreed. Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are 
> so valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the 
> software needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned 
> behaviors might have on Operators and users. To Tim's earlier 
> question, no I think this change doesn't reduce the need for Forum 
> sessions. If anything, I think it increases the need for us to get 
> REALLY good at channeling output from the Ops mid-cycle in to session 
> topics at the next Summit.
>
> The Ops meetup under its current format is mostly work sessions, and
> those would fit pretty well in the PTG event format. Ideally I would
> limit the feedback-gathering sessions there and use the Forum (and
> regional events like OpenStack days) to collect it. That sounds like a
> better way to reach out to "all users" and take into account their
> feedback and needs...
>
> They are largely work sessions, but independent of the co-location 
> discussion, the UC is focused on improving the ability for tangible 
> output to come from Ops mid-cycles, OpenStack Days and regional 
> meetups - largely in the form of Forum sessions and ultimately changes 
> in the software. So we, as a committee, see a lot of similarities in 
> what you just said. I'm not bold enough to predict exactly how 
> co-location might change the tone/topic of the Ops sessions, but I 
> agree that we shouldn't expect a lot of real-time feedback time with 
> devs at the PTG/mid-summit event (what ever we end up calling it). We 
> want the devs to be focused on what's already planned for the N+1 
> version or beyond. The conversations/sessions at the Ops portion of 
> the event would hopefully lead to Forum sessions on N+2 features, 
> functions, bug fixes, etc
>
> Overall, I still see co-location as a positive move. There will be 
> some tricky bits we need to figure out between to the "two sides" of 
> the event as we want to MINIMIZE any perceived us/them between dev and 
> ops - not add to it. But, the work session themselves, should still 
> honor the spirit of the PTG and Ops Mid-cycle as they are today. We 
> just get the added benefit of time together as a whole community - and 
> hopefully solve a few logistic/finance/sponsorship/venue issues that 
> trouble one event or the other today.
>
> Thanks!
> VW
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180402/28de2e85/attachment.html>