Open Stack

Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur <jimmy at openstack.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 <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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> Jonathan Proulx <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>
>> <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> <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>
>> <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/openstac
>> k-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. <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>
>> wrote:
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> Melvin Hillsman <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
>> 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 <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>
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
mrhillsman at gmail.com
mobile: (832) 264-2646
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20180402/4be445cc/attachment-0001.html>