Project:  Cinder

Attendees: Approximately 30

I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project. I think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something that we can continue.

Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce everyone. I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL and had the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the attendees could put faces with our names.

From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the following high level topics:

 * Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
 * Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
 * Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a bit
   of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
 * Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how what
   was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
 * Walked through the main Cinder code tree
 * Described how to test changes to Cinder

My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through Upstream Institute. I had coverage in the slides in case they had not been through the education. Unfortunately most of the class had not been through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating those concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going through real world examples of working with changes in Cinder. I got feedback from a few people that having some real hands on coding examples would have been helpful.

One way we could possible handle this is to split the on-boarding to a introduction section and then a more advanced second session. The other option is that we require people who are attending the on-boarding to have been through Upstream Institute. Something to think about.

I think it was unfortunate that the session wasn't recorded. We shared a lot of good information (between good questions and having a good representation of Cinder's Core team in the room) that it would have been nice to capture. Given this I am planning at some point in the near future to work with Walt Boring to record a version of the presentation that can be uploaded to our Cinder YouTube channel and include some coding examples.

In summary, I think the on-boarding rooms were a great addition and the Cinder team is pleased with how we used the time. I think it is something we would like to continue to invest time into developing and improving.

Jay

[1] https://www.slideshare.net/JayBryant2/openstack-cinder-onboarding-education-boston-summit-2017

On 5/19/2017 3:43 PM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
Project: Keystone
Attendees: 12 - 15

We conflicted with one of the Baremetal/VM sessions

I attempted to document most of the session in my recap [0].

We started out by doing a round-the-room of introductions so that folks could put IRC nicks to faces (we also didn't have a packed room so this went pretty quick). After that we cruised through a summary of keystone, the format of the projects, and the various processes we use. All of this took *maybe* 30 minutes.

From there we had an open discussion and things evolved organically. We ended up going through:

  * the differences between the v2.0 and v3 APIs
  * keystonemiddleware architecture, how it aids services, and how it
    interacts with keystone
      o we essentially followed an API call for creating a instance
        from keystone -> nova -> glance
  * how authentication scoping works and why it works that way
  * how federation works and why it's setup the way it is
  * how federated authentication works (https://goo.gl/NfY3mr)

All of this was pretty well-received and generated a lot of productive discussion. We also had several seasoned keystone contributors in the room, which helped a lot. Most of the attendees were all curious about similar topics, which was great, but we totally could have split into separate groups given the experience we had in the room (we'll save that in our back pocket for next time).

[0] https://www.lbragstad.com/blog/openstack-boston-summit-recap
[1] https://www.slideshare.net/LanceBragstad/keystone-project-onboarding

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com <mailto:inc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Kolla:
    Attendees - full room (20-30?)
    Notes - Conflict with kolla-k8s demo probably didn't help

    While we didn't have etherpad, slides, recording (and video dongle
    that could fit my laptop), we had great session with analog tools
    (whiteboard and my voice chords). We walked through architecture of
    each Kolla project, how they relate to each other and so on.

    Couple things to take out from our onboarding:
    1. Bring dongles
    2. We could've used bigger room - people were leaving because we had
    no chairs left
    3. Recording would be awesome
    4. Low tech is not a bad tech

    All and all, when we started session I didn't know what to expect or
    what people will expect so we just...rolled with it, and people seemed
    to be happy with it:) I think onboarding rooms were great idea (kudos
    to whoever came up with it)! I'll be happy to run it again in Sydney.

    Cheers,
    Michal


    On 19 May 2017 at 08:12, Julien Danjou <jul...@danjou.info
    <mailto:jul...@danjou.info>> wrote:
    > On Fri, May 19 2017, Sean Dague wrote:
    >
    >> If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the
    room,
    >> what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
    >> attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about
    which one
    >> it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the
    other side of
    >> the table.
    >
    > We shared a room for Telemetry and CloudKitty for 90 minutes.
    > I was there with Gordon Chung for Telemetry.
    > Christophe Sauthier was there for CloudKitty.
    >
    > We only had 3 people showing up in the session. One wanted to
    read his
    > emails in a quiet room, the two others had a couple of question on
    > Telemetry – though it was not really related to contribution as
    far as I
    > can recall.
    >
    > I had to leave after 45 minutes because they was an overlap with
    a talk
    > I was doing and rescheduling did not seem possible. And
    everybody left a
    > few minutes after I left apparently.
    >
    > --
    > Julien Danjou
    > -- Free Software hacker
    > -- https://julien.danjou.info
    >
    >
    __________________________________________________________________________
    > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    > Unsubscribe:
    openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
    >
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
    <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
    >

    __________________________________________________________________________
    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    Unsubscribe:
    openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
    <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>




__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to