Open Stack

+1 on Petter’s points below. I think the value of this kind of session is huge but the turnout over three days could’ve been much higher. Also, perhaps some more interesting prizes than stickers and hats?

> On 8 Nov 2016, at 08:30, Petter Lund <petter.lund at citynetwork.se> wrote:
> 
> Hi All
> 
> Thanks for enabling this it was great fun to be a part of it.
> My reflections on the week is like you say Flanders, the ppl that was there was very interested, but wasn't in such a great number.
> 
> On your feedback comments i would say that:
> 
> 1, It was a good mix of labs, those that were there had to roll up their sleeves to complete them,
> (but might just be because they wasn't appdev) but still didn't see it too challenging.
> If the rest of the more advanced labs are completed and available i think even more seasoned appdev would
> see the fun in them.
> 
> 2, Something that could be done is to promote the labs more/earlier during next summit, perhaps during the first Keynote instead of second like in Barcelona.
> we saw an increase of ppl stopping by after it was mentioned and so on. Could perhaps have more challenge sessions during the summit? giving ppl chance
> to chose what day to attend? On the labs it self my opinion is that nothing really needs to change, just need to get more ppl to do them ;-)
> 
> Looking forward to see this grow and evolve!
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Petter Lund
> 
> 
> On 11/08/2016 12:45 AM, David F Flanders wrote:
>> And a massive thanks to Gene, Petter, Bruno, Joanna, Sean, Jean, Caleb
>> (for being instructors + cloud accounts) and the everyone else for
>> stopping by and saying 'hi', it was great to see you all.
>> If nothing else, the Labs lounge/training was a good place to meet and
>> have meetings with the emerging set of community leaders in this
>> space.
>> 
>> I'm keen to get feedback from everyone on the Cloud App Labs
>> lounge+training (even if afar, first impression), ideally providing 2x
>> comments:
>> 
>> 1x comment for what we should keep (if we do 'cloud app labs' again in
>> Boston), and
>> 
>> 1x comment for what we should change (deltas) to improve cloud app
>> labs + training.
>> 
>> While the cloud app labs and training were well received by those who
>> participated, we only had around ~40 ppl participate[1] in completing
>> a lab/training and ~150+ pickup the flyer saying they would be
>> interested in trying the labs anon once they got home (naturally I
>> will monitor the GitHub analytics to see if we get any takers).
>> 
>> All feedback gratefully received and rewarded with Boston brews anon ;-)
>> 
>> [1]= I would agree that the majority of people who participated in the
>> labs were not application developers, but a mix of Operators,
>> Consultants, Trainers and others who are responsible for engaging
>> AppDev.  More on this anon.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> 
>> Flanders
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Gene Kuo <gene at openstack.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Lauren,
>>> 
>>> I was working with Flanders as a mentor at the Cloud App Labs Lounge and Python shade SDK training session[1] in Barcelona.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure about other sessions related to app-devs, but I found that most or even all of the attendees of Cloud App Labs and shade SDK training are not app developers.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, we should be focusing more on this community outside of summits. Hackathons may be a good idea as high percentage of the participant are app-devs.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Gene Kuo
>>> 
>>> [1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/events/17269/training-for-cloud-app-engineers-cross-cloud-application-deployment-how-to-deploy-application-in-multiple-open-data-centres-worldwide-using-the-python-shade-sdk
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Lauren Sell" <lauren at openstack.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 12:14pm
>>> To: "Bonell Manjarrez, Marcela" <marcela.bonell.manjarrez at intel.com>
>>> Cc: "user-committee" <user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [User-committee] [app] App Eco WG naming
>>> 
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>> I did not attend the meeting in Barcelona, but the name change and shift to a functional team makes sense to me. One potential small tweak to the wording could be App Dev Enablement?
>>> 
>>> Referencing your agenda from the Barcelona meeting, I’m excited about the efforts to improve developer.openstack.org and openstack.org/appdev. In terms of collaborating with other working groups, I’m anxious to hear how the enterprise WG book sprint about migrating / running apps on OpenStack went last week. Seems like a place your team might want to be involved, or at least consider how we leverage and promote the content.
>>> 
>>> I also saw notes about mapping the mix of events. I would love to get some feedback about our efforts to attract more app developers to Barcelona and the right strategy for the future, i.e. do we think we’ll ever attract a critical mass of app developers to an OpenStack Summit, or should we be focusing our efforts to educate and build this community outside of the Summits?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lauren
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Bonell Manjarrez, Marcela <marcela.bonell.manjarrez at intel.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> - App Developer Enabling +1
>>>> 
>>>> - Become a "functional team” +1
>>>> 
>>>> Marcela Bonell
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/1/16, 5:26 AM, "Christopher Aedo" <doc at aedo.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> During one of our work sessions in Barcelona (etherpad here[1]) we
>>>>> discussed the name of our working group and agreed it was overly broad
>>>>> and could use reconsideration.  Those in attendance agreed that our
>>>>> purpose, scope and deliverables[2] made sense given goals planned for
>>>>> the next cycle[3].
>>>>> 
>>>>> As far as names go, we briefly discussed the following before agreeing
>>>>> to continue the conversation on the mailing list after the summit:
>>>>> -App Developer Support
>>>>> -App Developer Enabling
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any feedback on these?  Any others to think about?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think it's also worth discussing whether or not we continue as a
>>>>> working group or transition to a functional team.  Nobody currently
>>>>> involved with the App Eco WG was there at it's creation.  Since then
>>>>> we've broadened our scope to cover more than just creation of the
>>>>> first-openstack-app guide and chasing improvements in external SDKs.
>>>>> Given the definitions in the UC charter[4] I think we should be
>>>>> operating as a "functional team" rather than a working group.  What do
>>>>> you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Christopher
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/AppEco_WG_BCN
>>>>> [2]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Application_Ecosystem_Working_Group
>>>>> [3]: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/app-eco-objectives
>>>>> [4]: http://governance.openstack.org/uc/reference/charter.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> User-committee mailing list
>>>>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> User-committee mailing list
>>>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> User-committee mailing list
>>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> User-committee mailing list
>>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763