Just my small addition into the collection of opinions.

It seems to me that at the core of all disagreements around this new format is 
the difference in our roles.

I've heard from some high-level managers several times that this new format is 
really great because so far we’ve
always had a dilemma who to send to a summit for budget reasons, whether it 
should be sales/marketing/speaking
people to promote projects/initiatives or developers to actually design stuff. 
So they say “Now it’s good because we
clearly know that we won’t be sending developers to summits, what are they 
going to do there? Instead, we
could consider sending some dev folks to a PTG”.

If you are a developer, of course, PTG is an important event to attend. But… 
Being a developer, I would also
love to attend summits also. For a bunch of reasons like catching up with the 
activities wider than my current
focus of development, participating in getting user feedback and help 
clarifying possible misunderstanding
of technical things being discussed which makes feedback gathering process more 
valuable (I believe
that often users don’t know what they want, at least, in details, we need to 
help them understand by sharing
our experience) etc. Also, for purely psychological reason I think it’s very 
important for people who mostly
focus on very specific tasks to sometimes go and see events like an OpenStack 
summit. From my experience,
people often change their attitude to their work when they see how many people 
are interested in what
they are working on in labs. And it’s almost impossible to find a better way of 
getting that feeling of participating
in something tremendous than attending summits.

Having that said though, I myself have mixed feelings about this new format. I 
like the PTG idea to be able to
focus on purely technical stuff. But I would like to participate in both 
events, they are almost equally important 
for me but budget is budget, travelling 4 times a year may be challenging.

Renat Akhmerov

> On 14 Oct 2016, at 23:54, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Eoghan Glynn's message of 2016-10-14 05:08:44 -0400:
>>>>> Excerpts from Jaesuk Ahn's message of 2016-10-12 15:08:24 +0000:
>>>>>> It can be cheap if you are in the US. However, for Asia folks, it is not
>>>>>> that cheap considering it is all overseas travel. In addition,
>>>>>> all-in-one
>>>>>> event like the current summit makes us much easier to get the travel
>>>>>> fund
>>>>>> from the company, since the company only need to send everyone (tech,
>>>>>> ops,
>>>>>> business, strategy) to one event. Even as an ops or developers, doing
>>>>>> presentation or a meeting with one or two important company can be very
>>>>>> good excuse to get the travel money.
>>>>> This is definitely on the list of concerns I heard while the split was
>>>>> being discussed.
>>>>> I think the concern is valid, and we'll have to see how it affects
>>>>> attendance at PTG's and summits.
>>>>> However, I am not so sure the overseas cost is being accurately
>>>>> characterized. Of course, the complications are higher with immigration
>>>>> details, but ultimately hotels around international hub airports are
>>>>> extremely cheap, and flights tend to be quite a bit less expensive and
>>>>> more numerous to these locations. You'll find flights from Narita to
>>>>> LAX for < $500 where as you'd be hard pressed to find Narita to Boston
>>>>> for under $600, and they'll be less convenient, possibly requiring more
>>>>> hotel days.
>>>> The bit about hotels contradicts my whole experience. I've never seen
>>>> hotels in
>>>> big busy hubs cheaper than in less popular and crowded cities. Following
>>>> your
>>>> logic, hotels e.g. in Paris should be cheaper than ones in e.g. Prague,
>>>> which I
>>>> promise you is far from being the case :)
>>> Sorry I communicated that horribly.
>>> The hotels next to LAX, which are _ugly_ and _disgusting_ but perfectly
>>> suitable for a PTG, are much cheaper than say, the ones in DT LA near the
>>> convention center, or in Hollywood, or near Disneyland.
>>> A better comparison than LAX might be Atlanta or Minneapolis, which
>>> are cities that aren't such common end-destinations, but have tons of
>>> flights in and out and generally affordable accommodations.
>>>>> Also worth considering is how cheap the space is for the PTG
>>>>> vs. Summit. Without need for large expo halls, keynote speakers,
>>>>> catered lunch and cocktail hours, we can rent a smaller, less impressive
>>>>> space. That should mean either a cheaper ticket price (if there is one
>>>>> at all) or more sponsored travel to the PTG. Either one of those should
>>>>> help alleviate the concerns about travel budget.
>>>> For upstream developers ticker price was 0. Now it will be > 0, so for
>>>> companies
>>>> who send mostly developers, this is a clear budget increase.
>>> The nominal price of the PTG is expected to be something like $25 or
>>> $50. This isn't to cover all the costs, but to ensure that people don't
>>> just sign up "just in case I'm in the area" or anything like that.
>> Well, I've heard this concern about no-shows multiple times on this and
>> other threads, and TBH it simply doesn't ring true to my ears.
>> Up to now, we've had a scenario where summit was effectively *free* to
>> contributors. Did we have hoards of people sign up and then not show up?
> It has been free to a subset of contributors. The criteria for "ATC" has
> gotten more and more amorphous as the community has grown and the system
> has been gamed. The ticket was also considered more valuable, since you
> get access to all the lavish parties and swag that comes with a big
> conference. These things don't mean a ton to those who we want coming to
> the PTG, but it did mean that the foundation was effectively writing off
> $600/ATC.
> The point of doing this differently is, I think, that we want to be able
> to invite anybody who wants to participate on a project team to the PTG.
> There, they can get involved with technical work and introduce themselves
> face to face. We also just learned yesterday the price will in fact
> cover some of the costs, so it's not entirely to prevent no-shows.
>> And even if we did, surely it's not beyond our collective intelligence
>> to simply account for that in the planning, based on historical trends.
>> Take a stab at it, say 20% no-shows or whatever rough rate we've seen for
>> past summits. Scale the accommodation accordingly for ATL. Iterate that
>> for the second PTG, based on the observed no-show rate at the first.
>> OTOH if the $100 in really intended to pay for the coffees and M&Ms, then
>> let's just be upfront and say so. But let's not pretend that 100 bucks is
>> cheaper than free.
> Indeed, I'm learning that it's a little different than my original
> impressions had been. However, I'm still pretty sure it's going to solve
> enough problems to be worth the new ones we think it might introduce.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev 
> <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

Reply via email to