On 03/01/2016 04:30 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 03/01/2016 09:03 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> On 03/01/2016 05:08 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > >>>>>> In Vancouver I happened to be sitting behind someone who stated "I'm >>>>>> just here for the buzz." Which is lovely for that person. The >>>>>> problem is >>>>>> that the buzz that person is there for is partially created by me >>>>>> and I >>>>>> create it and mean to offer it to people who will return it in >>>>>> kind, not >>>>>> just soak it up and keep it to themselves. >>>>>> >>>>> I don't know if drive-by attendance at design summit sessions by >>>>> under- >>>>> qualified or uninformed summiteers is encouraged by the >>>>> availability of >>>>> ATC passes. But as long as those individuals aren't actively derailing >>>>> the conversation in sessions, I wouldn't consider their buzz >>>>> soakage as >>>>> a major issue TBH. >>>>> >>>> Folks who want to help (even if they don't know how yet) carry an >>>> energy >>>> of intention with them which is nourishing to be around. Folks who are >>>> trying to get in the door and not be expected to help and hope noone >>>> notices carry an entirely different kind of energy with them. It is a >>>> non-nourishing energy. >>> >>> Personally I don't buy into that notion of the wrong sort of people >>> sneaking in the door of summit, keeping their heads down and hoping >>> no-one notices. > > <snip> > >>> TBH we should be flattered that the design >>> summit sessions are interesting and engaging enough to also attract >>> some of that sort of audience, as well as the core contributors of >>> code. If those interested folks happen to also have the gumption to >>> earn an ATC pass by meeting the threshold for contributor activity, >>> then good for them! As long as no-one is actively derailing the >>> discussion, I don't see much of an issue with the current mix of >>> attendees. >> >> Yeah, I don't feel you have understood what my point is, and that is >> fine. We did put forward an attempt to communicate and it failed. We >> will have other opportunities on other issues in the future. > > I don't think it's so much a failure to communicate, but rather simply a > failure to arrive at a consensus. As I see it, Eoghan understands your > point but does not feel the same way.
No anyone who believes that my position includes dishonouring users isn't understanding my point. Thanks, Anita. > > Chris > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
