On 10/29/2014 07:22 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 10/28/2014 05:22 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
A draft schedule has been posted for the cross-project design summit track:


If you have any schedule changes to propose for really bad conflicts,
please let me know.  We really tried to minimize conflicts, but it's
impossible to resolve them all.

The next steps are to identify session leads and get the leads to write
session descriptions to put on the schedule.  We're collecting both at
the top of the proposals etherpad:


If you were the proposer of one of these sessions and are not already
listed as the session lead, please add yourself.  If you'd like to
volunteer to lead a session that doesn't have a lead, please speak up.

For the sessions you are leading, please draft a description on the
etherpad that can be used for the session on sched.org.

Thank you!

I was trying to track down the origin of the "Debugging Gate Failures"
submission -
(through matching hex author colors in etherpad... fun!)

It looks like John G copied it over because someone (lost to the mists
of time) put it in the Nova ideas etherpad.

I'd actually argue that a 40 minute interactive session without much
prep isn't going to be all that useful (and honestly probably a terrible
experience for all parties involved). This is a topic that Jay, Dan, and
I have discussed for doing an upcoming bootstrapping hour on (which also
means it would have a long term archived version), and I think that's
probably a better way to do a thing like this.

As there is no owner for this, there is no one to pull it out of the
agenda. But I think it's something that should be considered.

Actually, it was me who added that to the cross-project session proposal etherpad :)

But, that said, I agree with you that the format of the cross-project sessions are not ideal for this topic and it would be better as an archived OBH session.


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to