Open Stack

I’m also in favor of using a web-meeting format, but (acknowledging that we have not built an agenda yet) I question if 2 hours per day will be enough time.  I’d also add that in my experience, either early morning or late night (from a USA perspective) works best if we will have global participation.  It’s challenging to find times that will work for all.  When we need to meet during those kinds of odd hours, meetings longer than 2 hours becomes impractical as longer would require ending too late at night for some or too early in the morning for others if they still have to conduct their normal workday in addition.  As an option, perhaps (if we have enough participation) we could orchestrate some whole group sessions along with some topical breakout sessions in smaller teams that could be more conveniently scheduled for the participants?

One of the great things about the face 2 face meetings is that we’re able to give the PWG all of our attention for n days and not be trying to squeeze in PWG time on top of an already overly full regular work day.  With that in mind, I think there is still an argument to be made for having full day meetings.  If we had a 2 day mid-cycle that we had to travel to, that really becomes 3-4 days away from our regular jobs due to travel.  Even if we needed to adjust our sleep schedules for a couple days in order to have 8+ hour meetings per day, it would still be overall less disruptive than travel. The benefit (IMO) would be that we could basically put our regular jobs on hold for those 2 days and give the PWG meetings our full attention. I’d prefer this approach over just trying to layer in an extra 2 hours for PWG on top of a regular work day. If I can say that I will be “out of office” for two days, it seems people respect that. If I say that I’ll have 2 hour meetings early or late for a few days, everyone will still consider me as being my usual 100% available for my regular work. That would definitely impair my ability to focus on PWG and I’d likely end up multi-tasking through our meetings.  For that reason, I’d favor full day meetings over 2 hour per day slices.

-Andy

Andrew Ukasick
Principal Systems Engineer
AT&T Integrated Cloud (AIC),  Openstack Community Coordination

From: Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com [mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 9:37 AM
To: yih.leong.sun at intel.com; user-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [User-committee] [Product] PWG Midcycle Teleconference

I am for teleconference.
My preference is to do it for 2 hours in late afternoon.
Suggest doodle to determine best time slots

From: Sun, Yih Leong [mailto:yih.leong.sun at intel.com]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 5:01 PM
To: user-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [User-committee] [Product] PWG Midcycle Teleconference

Hi Product WG,

As discussed in PWG irc meeting, we will not be hosting any face-to-face midcycle meeting for Product WG this time, neither at Ops Midcycle (Aug 2017) nor PTG (Sep 2017). Instead, we are considering a Teleconferencing method.

There can be various options in terms of format and number of occurrences.
For example, in today IRC, Rocky suggested that we probably can run the teleconf 2 hours at US Pacific (beginning of day) and 2 hours at the end,  then run for couple of days. We can arrange a specific agenda item to be discussed at specific hour and day, etc.

If this is feasible, we need to determine dates, time and agenda.

Prior to finalizing any decision, I would like to solicit feedback if a teleconferencing method would work for most?
All feedback and suggestion are welcome.

Thanks!

---
Yih Leong Sun, PhD (宋毅良)
Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center | Intel Corporation
yih.leong.sun at intel.com<mailto:yih.leong.sun at intel.com> | +1 503 264 0610

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20170628/0ecce6aa/attachment.html>