[Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

Melvin Hillsman mrhillsman at gmail.com
Fri Mar 23 02:08:02 UTC 2018

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>

> 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

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/20180322/98381cc6/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list