On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The OpenStack Foundation staff is considering a number of changes to the
> Design Summit format for Vancouver, changes on which we'd very much like
> to hear your feedback.
>
> The problems we are trying to solve are the following:
> - Accommodate the needs of more "OpenStack projects"
> - Reduce separation and perceived differences between the Ops Summit and
> the Design/Dev Summit
> - Create calm and less-crowded spaces for teams to gather and get more
> work done
>
> While some sessions benefit from large exposure, loads of feedback and
> large rooms, some others are just workgroup-oriented work sessions that
> benefit from smaller rooms, less exposure and more whiteboards. Smaller
> rooms are also cheaper space-wise, so they allow us to scale more easily
> to a higher number of "OpenStack projects".
>
> My proposal is the following. Each project team would have a track at
> the Design Summit. Ops feedback is in my opinion part of the design of
> OpenStack, so the Ops Summit would become a track within the
> forward-looking "Design Summit". Tracks may use two separate types of
> sessions:
>
> * Fishbowl sessions
> Those sessions are for open discussions where a lot of participation and
> feedback is desirable. Those would happen in large rooms (100 to 300
> people, organized in fishbowl style with a projector). Those would have
> catchy titles and appear on the general Design Summit schedule. We would
> have space for 6 or 7 of those in parallel during the first 3 days of
> the Design Summit (we would not run them on Friday, to reproduce the
> successful Friday format we had in Paris).
>
> * Working sessions
> Those sessions are for a smaller group of contributors to get specific
> work done or prioritized. Those would happen in smaller rooms (20 to 40
> people, organized in boardroom style with loads of whiteboards). Those
> would have a blanket title (like "infra team working session") and
> redirect to an etherpad for more precise and current content, which
> should limit out-of-team participation. Those would replace "project
> pods". We would have space for 10 to 12 of those in parallel for the
> first 3 days, and 18 to 20 of those in parallel on the Friday (by
> reusing fishbowl rooms).
>
> Each project track would request some mix of sessions ("We'd like 4
> fishbowl sessions, 8 working sessions on Tue-Thu + half a day on
> Friday") and the TC would arbitrate how to allocate the limited
> resources. Agenda for the fishbowl sessions would need to be published
> in advance, but agenda for the working sessions could be decided
> dynamically from an etherpad agenda.
>
> By making larger use of smaller spaces, we expect that setup to let us
> accommodate the needs of more projects. By merging the two separate Ops
> Summit and Design Summit events, it should make the Ops feedback an
> integral part of the Design process rather than a second-class citizen.
> By creating separate working session rooms, we hope to evolve the "pod"
> concept into something where it's easier for teams to get work done
> (less noise, more whiteboards, clearer agenda).
>
> What do you think ? Could that work ? If not, do you have alternate
> suggestions ?
>
> This looks great, thanks for continuing to evolve the Summit format!
Kyle
--
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> 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
