Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-05-19 09:22:07 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: > [...] >> the project, > > I hosted the onboarding session for the Infrastructure team. For > various logistical reasons discussed on the planning thread before > the PTG, it was a shared session with many other "horizontal" teams > (QA, Requirements, Stable, Release). We carved the 90-minute block > up into individual subsessions for each team, though due to > scheduling conflicts I was only able to attend the second half > (Release and Infra). Attendance was also difficult to gauge; we had > several other regulars from the Infra team present in the audience, > people associated with other teams with which we shared the room, > and an assortment of new faces but hard to tell which session(s) > they were mainly there to see.
Doug and I ran the "Release management" segment of that shared slot. >> what you did in the room, > > I prepared a quick (5-10 minute) "help wanted" intro slide deck to > set the stage, then transitioned to a less formal mix of Q&A and > open discussion of some of the exciting things we're working on > currently. I felt like we didn't really get as many solid questions > as I was hoping, but the back-and-forth with other team members in > the room about our priority efforts was definitely a good way to > fill in the gaps between. We had a quick slidedeck to introduce what the release team actually does (not that much), what are the necessary skills (not really ninjas) and a base intro on our process. The idea was to inspire others to join the team by making it more approachable, and stating that new faces were definitely needed. >> what you think worked, > > The format wasn't bad. Given the constraints we were under for this, > sharing seems to have worked out pretty well for us and possibly > seeded the audience with people who were interested in what those > other teams had to say and stuck around to see me ramble. I liked the room setup (classroom style) which is conducive to learning. >> what you would have done differently > [...] > > The goal I had was to drum up some additional solid contributors to > our team, though the upshot (not necessarily negative, just not what > I expected) was that we seemed to get more interest from "adjacent > technologies" representatives interested in what we were doing and > how to replicate it in their ecosystems. If that ends up being a > significant portion of the audience going forward, it's possible we > could make some adjustments to our approach in an attempt to entice > them to collaborate further on co-development of our tools and > processes. Attracting the right set of people in the room is definitely a challenge. I don't know if regrouping several teams into the same slot was a good idea in that respect. Maybe have shorter slots for smaller teams, but still give them their own slot in the schedule ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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