Open Stack

Personally, I'd like to see two user feedback sessions:


1.       Before the summit (around end Feb/start March) for the operators/users to work through the mechanisms for feedback, prepare the initial set of input for the Juno cycle and agree on the structure for the summit day.  Clearly, this should not be considered as getting input from the entire user/operator community but I suspect a sample would cover many of the areas where we all would need improvements. The ambassadors could help as part of gathering the input and ensure the appropriate quality and consolidation. Offline input should also be possible for those who could not attend.

2.       We arrange a session for user feedback at the summit. Potentially, there may be an opportunity to use some of the summit facilities in Atlanta on the Sunday which I am exploring with the foundation staff. Getting the future iterative feedback channels agreed would be key for this session. How can the developers ask the users/operators how important feature X is (since it is suggested for depreciation) ? What would be the impact if the function for X is spun off to another new project or kept within its existing one ?

Documentation showed a significant improvement since the last user survey which reflects the efforts that Anne, Tom and others put in along with the very user friendly methods put in place where anyone can click on a link to report a problem (as opposed to creating a blueprint for the correct component with a solution described).

Tim

From: Tristan Goode [mailto:tristan at aptira.com]
Sent: 27 December 2013 17:05
To: openstack at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Bringing focus to the Operators and Users at the next summit

I'm not at all discounting the DevOps conversation as ideally a continuous cyclic dialog. There may well be wonderful continuous communication in Dev land for OpenStack right now, but in Ops land it's certainly not middle or start or end or anywhere, it's almost non-existent. This breakdown in the DevOps cycle is evident in the fact that the feedback from the "OpenStack User Survey" presented at the most recent summit was essentially unchanged from the feedback of the previous summit and echoed much of the same sentiment, so it's clear developers are not completing the DevOps cycle here even when this information was presented in advance last time. The attitude seems to be largely that if you have an issue then rather than "complaining about it" you should write more code to fix the issue i.e. ops should become dev so dev can remain doing what they like.

I'm trying to get user feedback solidly and right up front into the summit because that's the only practical place to do it, for exactly the same reason the design sessions are done at the summit. I'm not saying it's the start, middle or end of the user feedback cycle, it's just a part but it's as important part as the design session is to the development process. Not only does trying to push this out to some other time and venue send a message to customers who might want to participate, the sure to be less attendance would dilute the input of Ops into the DevOps cycle and prejudice those of us that can't afford to send people to more events than the summits.

Cheers
Tristan



From: jagman4000 at gmail.com<mailto:jagman4000 at gmail.com> [mailto:jagman4000 at gmail.com<mailto:jagman4000 at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Joe Gordon
Sent: Saturday, 28 December 2013 12:37 AM
To: Tristan Goode
Cc: Mark Collier; openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Bringing focus to the Operators and Users at the next summit


On Dec 27, 2013 4:24 AM, "Tristan Goode" <tristan at aptira.com<mailto:tristan at aptira.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble seeing these great points of insight here other than it seems to indicate that the design summit format could be improved. Distilling this down to "We developers are all too busy at the summit, why don't you users go get your own thing" suggests that perhaps it's time for a review of the summit format.
>

I think that's missing a key point, there is much more to this then evaluating the summit format. The summit is the middle of a long development dialog not the beginning or the end. Getting more operator feedback to the developers shouldn't just happen at the summits, it should be a continuous process just like openstack planning and development. So we need some way for operators and developers to have a continuous dialog. Developers communicate today on: IRC, email and launchpad and lastly in person twice a year at the design summit.

>
>
> After all it does say "users" and "developers" on the summit logo.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Mark Collier [mailto:mark at collierclan.net<mailto:mark at collierclan.net>]
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 December 2013 12:30 AM
> To: Sean Dague
>
> Cc: openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Bringing focus to the Operators and Users at the next summit
>
>
>
> Thanks Sean. You and Thierry have made great points on this thread that I think give people more insight into the process and timing required to really impact the releases.
>
> I've fallen into the trap many times of thinking we can solve any problem in the world during the 10 days a year we are all together, but in the end its only 10 days. No matter how you organize them, they don't any get longer.
>
> So +1 for some activities well before the summit to gather input. I think Tim's suggestion makes a ton of sense.
>
> IMHO we should also avoid the trap of thinking that for gatherings to be valuable "everyone has to be there". That's what leads back to thinking the summit weeks are the answer to everything. As Tim said, it's quite likely operators are experiencing a lot of the same pain points, so what is needed is critical mass and action, not every known user in one room (unrealistic). Perhaps with some online components where operators that couldn't make a meetup can weigh in (and give a weighted priority to a list?)
>
> On Dec 23, 2013 6:35 AM, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net<mailto:sean at dague.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/22/2013 12:49 PM, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com<mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> wrote:
>> > I'd like to repeat a suggestion at the Design Summit wrap up - it's a
>> > bit different, so patience...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My suggestion was to insert a day "break" into the four day Design
>> > Summit for users/operations.  Effectively, we'd have a four day design
>> > summit with Monday+Tuesday  - break for user/ops conf -
>> > Thursday+Friday.  This would allow the developers and PTLs to join in
>> > the conference parts of the summit without needed a distinct event.
>> > The regular non-design conference could be held Tuesday-Thursday so
>> > there's a specific overlap day when 100% of the community would be together.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I felt like this allows ideas from the summit to be socialized with
>> > users/operator before we commit to them.  I also felt that it makes the
>> > developers more accessible.  Finally, it creates a break/reflection from
>> > the intensity of the design.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To recap, 4 day design, 3 day user/ops conference spanning 5 days.
>>
>> Honestly I'd be pretty -1 on that idea. There is a certain momentum that
>> builds inside the design summit sessions that 2 hard context switches
>> like that would really hurt. If you've ever spent time in the Nova track
>> you can see this in spades.
>>
>> I think one of the missing things for folks that don't spend all their
>> time in Design Summit is realizing that DS is really the *middle* of the
>> conversation, not that start of one. I actually think this is where
>> folks new to design summit tend to flail a little be in their sessions.
>> My goals for design summit, and my tracks, were set weeks in advance,
>> and there was very little new here, it was mostly about working through
>> the sticky details on things we largely were already working on, and
>> exposing some of that work to a wider audience which drags in new
>> volunteers. So the User / Ops day at Summit is far too late to impact
>> that release cycle.
>>
>> That interaction needs to come 3+ weeks before Design Summit to be
>> effective on that cycle. Because if it's later than that, it's just too
>> much to digest at a point where the plates are already overflowing. The
>> key developers are already about 200% booked at Summits at this point,
>> which is actually why *more* OpenStack PTLs spoke at LinuxCon NA this
>> year than at OpenStack Summit HK. For instance, I only wandered out side
>> of Design Summit twice, when I was on stage. And I didn't even get a
>> chance to go to any of the public parties, as I was booked every single
>> night at summit - weeks in advance.
>>
>> So I think that all those folks are pretty open to getting more engaged
>> with Users / Ops (I know I am), but the existing Summit structure isn't
>> going to allow that. Making people 250% booked at Summit isn't going to
>> really be a successful way to handle this.
>>
>> I'm far more positive on something mid cycle, preferably at other
>> conferences that we expected there to be OpenStack folks at to begin with.
>>
>>         -Sean
>>
>> --
>> Sean Dague
>> Samsung Research America
>> sean at dague.net<mailto:sean at dague.net> / sean.dague at samsung.com<mailto:sean.dague at samsung.com>
>> http://dague.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
>> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20131227/52512748/attachment.html>