Open Stack

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:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20180322/1c5ede83/attachment.html>