On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > >> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't > much > > >> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would > > >> argue that given the rate, we should not try to ask more of > individuals > > >> (like this proposal) and risk burnout. Instead, we should be doing > our > > >> best to be more open an inclusive to give the project the best chance > to > > >> grow, as that's the best way to get more done. > > >> > > >> I think an increased travel expectation is a raised bar that will > hinder > > >> team growth, not help it. > > > > > > +1, well said. > > > > Sorry, I was away for a few days. This is a topic I have a few strong > > opinions on :) > > > > There is no denial that the meetup format is working well, comparatively > > better than the design summit format. There is also no denial that that > > requiring 4 travels per year for a "core" dev is unreasonable. Where is > > the limit ? Wouldn't we be more productive and aligned if we did one per > > month ? No, the question is how to reach a sufficient level of focus and > > alignment while keeping the number of "mandatory" travel at 2 per year. > > > > I don't think our issue comes from not having enough F2F time. Our issue > > is that the design summit no longer reaches its objectives of aligning > > key contributors on a common plan, and we need to fix it. > > > > We established the design summit as the once-per-cycle opportunity to > > have face-to-face time and get alignment across the main contributors to > > a project. That used to be completely sufficient, but now it doesn't > > work as well... which resulted in alignment and team discussions to be > > discussed at mid-cycle meetups instead. Why ? And what could we change > > to have those alignment discussions at the design summit again ? > > > > Why are design summits less productive that mid-cycle meetups those days > > ? Is it because there are too many non-contributors in the design summit > > rooms ? Is it the 40-min format ? Is it the distractions (having talks > > to give somewhere else, booths to attend, parties and dinners to be at) > > ? Is it that beginning of cycle is not the best moment ? Once we know > > WHY the design summit fails its main objective, maybe we can fix it. > > > > My gut feeling is that having a restricted audience and a smaller group > > lets people get to the bottom of an issue and reach consensus. And that > > you need at least half a day or a full day of open discussion to reach > > such alignment. And that it's not particularly great to get such > > alignment in the middle of the cycle, getting it at the start is still > > the right way to align with the release cycle. > > > > Nothing prevents us from changing part of the design summit format (even > > the Paris one!), and restrict attendance to some of the sessions. And if > > the main issue is the distraction from the conference colocation, we > > might have to discuss the future of co-location again. In that "2 events > > per year" objective, we could make the conference the optional cycle > > thing, and a developer-oriented specific event the mandatory one. > > > > If we manage to have alignment at the "design summit", then it doesn't > > spell the end of the mid-cycle things. But then, ideally the extra > > mid-cycle gatherings should be focused on getting specific stuff done, > > rather than general team alignment. Think workshop/hackathon rather than > > private gathering. The goal of the workshop would be published in > > advance, and people could opt to join that. It would be totally optional. > > This pretty much all aligns with my thoughts on the matter. The key point > is that the design summit is the right place from a cycle timing POV to > have the critical f2f discussions & debates, and we need to figure out > what we can do to make it a more effective venue than it currently is. > > IME I'd probably say the design summit sessions I've been to fall into > two broad camps. > > - Information dissemination - just talk through proposal(s) to let > everyone know what's being planned / thought. Some questions and > debate, but mostly a one-way presentation. > > - Technical debates - the topic is just a high level hook, around > which, a lively argument & debate was planned & took place. > > I think that the number of the information dissemination sessions could > be cut back on by encouraging people to take advantage of other equally > as effective methods of communication. In many cases it would suffice to > just have a more extensive blueprint / spec created, or a detailed wiki > page or similar doc to outline the problem space. If we had some regular > slot where people could do online presentations ("Technical talks") that > could be a good way to push the information, out of band from the main > summits. If those online talks led to significant questions, then those > questions could then justify design summit sessions for f2f debate. > ++, I have always found the information dissemination sessions to be a bit silly. > > As an example, much as it is nice that we give every hypervisor driver > in Nova a slot at the design summit, I wonder whether they are the best > use of our time. Alot of the material in those sessions (including the > libvirt one I led) could have been well disseminated without needing > a design summit. Further much of their material is targetted to a fairly > small subset of the nova community > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ > :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org > :| > |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ > :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc > :| > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev