On 08/28/2014 03:06 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/28/2014 02:21 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 08/28/2014 01:58 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> On 08/27/2014 11:34 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I've been thinking about what changes we can bring to the Design >>>>> Summit format to make it more productive. I've heard the feedback >>>>> from the mid-cycle meetups and would like to apply some of those >>>>> ideas for Paris, within the constraints we have (already booked >>>>> space and time). Here is something we could do: >>>>> >>>>> Day 1. Cross-project sessions / incubated projects / other >>>>> projects >>>>> >>>>> I think that worked well last time. 3 parallel rooms where we can >>>>> address top cross-project questions, discuss the results of the >>>>> various experiments we conducted during juno. Don't hesitate to >>>>> schedule 2 slots for discussions, so that we have time to come to >>>>> the bottom of those issues. Incubated projects (and maybe "other" >>>>> projects, if space allows) occupy the remaining space on day 1, and >>>>> could occupy "pods" on the other days. >>>> >>>> If anything, I’d like to have fewer cross-project tracks running >>>> simultaneously. Depending on which are proposed, maybe we can make >>>> that happen. On the other hand, cross-project issues is a big theme >>>> right now so maybe we should consider devoting more than a day to >>>> dealing with them. >>> >>> I agree with Doug here. I'd almost say having a single cross-project >>> room, with serialized content would be better than 3 separate >>> cross-project tracks. By nature, the cross-project sessions will attract >>> developers that work or are interested in a set of projects that looks >>> like a big Venn diagram. By having 3 separate cross-project tracks, we >>> would increase the likelihood that developers would once more have to >>> choose among simultaneous sessions that they have equal interest in. For >>> Infra and QA folks, this likelihood is even greater... >>> >>> I think I'd prefer a single cross-project track on the first day. >> >> So the fallout of that is there will be 6 or 7 cross-project slots for >> the design summit. Maybe that's the right mix if the TC does a good job >> picking the top 5 things we want accomplished from a cross project >> standpoint during the cycle. But it's going to have to be a pretty >> directed pick. I think last time we had 21 slots, and with a couple of >> doubling up that gave 19 sessions. (about 30 - 35 proposals for that >> slot set). > > I'm not sure that would be a bad thing :) > > I think one of the reasons the mid-cycles have been successful is that > they have adequately limited the scope of discussions and I think by > doing our homework by fully vetting and voting on cross-project sessions > and being OK with saying "No, not this time.", we will be more > productive than if we had 20+ cross-project sessions. > > Just my two cents, though..
I'm not sure it would be a bad thing either. I just wanted to be explicit about what we are saying the cross projects sessions are for in this case: the 5 key cross project activities the TC believes should be worked on this next cycle. The other question is if we did that what's running in competition to cross project day? Is it another free form pod day for people not working on those things? -Sean > > -jay > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev