Open Stack

I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate
on us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's
basically what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so.

Cheers
Erik

PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,
etc.

On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman" <mrhillsman at gmail.com> wrote:

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/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. <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
_______________________________________________
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/c14e8eb2/attachment.html>