Amrith raises an interesting point. This proposal moves from effectively 4 dev events a year to 2 dev events a year, thus *reducing* the amount of face-to-face time we have.
While my first reaction to the proposed changes is positive, de facto reduction of time spent together as devs seems counter-productive. My thinking goes like this: we have mid-cycles currently. Regardless of if they are "required" or if they are official or not, effectively they are productive weeks that the most active contributors try to attend. And they are highly beneficial and productive weeks. The current summits have time and space set aside for contributor communication. Over the last couple of years, these summit sessions have gotten better, not worse. While the current summit/conference design does indeed but a burden on some contributors (myself included--it's a really busy week), the majority of devs in the room during the current design sessions do *not* also have customer meetings, booth duty, two conference talks, and various company parties to attend. I'm worried that we're losing valuable dev face-to-face time from the "long-tail" of contributors for the benefit of the minority of devs who are most active. And for those who are most active, we're still doing four events a year all over the world. --John On 22 Feb 2016, at 9:45, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Amrith Kumar wrote: >> [...] >> As a result of this proposal, there will still be four events each year, two >> "OpenStack Summit" events and two "MidCycle" events. > > Actually, the OpenStack summit becomes the midcycle event. The new separated > contributors-oriented event[tm] happens at the beginning of the new cycle. > >> [...] >> Given the number of projects, and leaving aside high bandwidth internet and >> remote participation, providing dedicated meeting room for the duration of >> the MidCycle event for each project is a considerable undertaking. I believe >> therefore that the consequence is that the MidCycle event will end up being >> of comparable scale to the current Design Summit or larger, and will likely >> need a similar venue. > > It still is an order of magnitude smaller than the "OpenStack Summit". Think > 600 people instead of 6000. The idea behind co-hosting is to facilitate > cross-project interactions. You know where to find people, and you can easily > arrange a meeting between two teams for an hour. > >> [...] >> At the current OpenStack Summit, there is an opportunity for contributors, >> customers and operators to interact, not just in technical meetings, but >> also in a social setting. I think this is valuable, even though there seems >> to be a number of people who believe that this is not necessarily the case. > > I don't think the proposal removes that opportunity. Contributors /can/ still > go to OpenStack Summits. They just don't /have to/. I just don't think every > contributor needs to be present at every OpenStack Summit, while I'd like to > see most of them present at every separated contributors-oriented event[tm]. > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
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
