Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur <ji...@openstack.org> > wrote: > >> Hi all - >> >> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the >> colocation of the Ops Meetup. Please let us know as soon as possible as we >> have to alert our events team. >> >> Thanks! >> Jimmy >> >> Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com> >> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM >> Hello Everyone, >> This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There >> was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the >> foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put >> forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it >> looks like we could have a really great combined event in September. >> >> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In >> the meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like >> to declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU >> OBJECT please speak up by end of week, this week. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> Jonathan Proulx <j...@csail.mit.edu> >> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote: >> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. >> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a >> :try. >> : >> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to >> :meet and offline discussion. :) >> >> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs- >> PTG/OpsMidcycle >> >> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get >> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of >> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing >> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might >> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch, >> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests. >> >> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more >> conceptual "what" discussions. >> >> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits >> to colocation. >> >> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation >> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally >> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to >> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the >> events as cheap and simple as possible. >> >> -Jon >> >> : >> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> >> <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote: >> : >> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very >> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my >> +2 >> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and >> agree >> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions. >> :> >> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least >> giving >> :> this a try. >> :> >> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle >> <mvanw...@rackspace.com> <mvanw...@rackspace.com> >> :> wrote: >> :> >> :>> Hey folks, >> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back >> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's >> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of >> the >> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, >> but >> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as >> I >> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching >> points. >> :>> >> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the >> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, >> feature >> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate >> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, >> that >> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW >> the >> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the >> focus >> :>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has >> :>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I >> know >> :>> several who have found it valuable. >> :>> >> :>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective >> :>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were >> occurring. >> :>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's >> purpose >> :>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in >> this >> :>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to >> :>> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they >> have >> :>> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated. >> For >> :>> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just >> :>> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold. >> :>> >> :>> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> >> <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: >> :>> >> :>> Doug Hellmann wrote: >> :>> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +0000: >> :>> >> >> :>> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the >> :>> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with >> :>> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends >> :>> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the >> :>> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time? >> :>> > >> :>> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor >> :>> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but >> :>> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the >> :>> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle >> :>> > would be convenient, for sure.) >> :>> > >> :>> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems >> :>> > key. >> :>> >> :>> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that >> :>> one >> :>> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group >> :>> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue >> :>> for >> :>> engaging with everyone in our community. >> :>> >> :>> The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their >> :>> focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work >> :>> items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are >> :>> co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite >> :>> other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of >> :>> expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our >> :>> geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and >> :>> get >> :>> work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to >> :>> maximize >> :>> the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who >> :>> can't >> :>> relate to any specific work group. >> :>> >> :>> Exactly. I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but >> :>> it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG. We need >> this >> :>> time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum >> sessions >> :>> (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version. While >> some >> :>> folks could drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle is >> just >> :>> that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support >> across one, >> :>> larger event - it should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the >> sessions >> :>> Theirry describes above >> :>> >> :>> The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific >> :>> discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum >> :>> sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are >> :>> defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event >> :>> schedule, >> :>> and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of >> :>> attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It >> :>> allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend >> :>> much >> :>> time getting more engaged and contribute back. >> :>> >> :>> Agreed. Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are >> :>> so valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the >> :>> software needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned >> :>> behaviors might have on Operators and users. To Tim's earlier >> question, no >> :>> I think this change doesn't reduce the need for Forum sessions. If >> :>> anything, I think it increases the need for us to get REALLY good at >> :>> channeling output from the Ops mid-cycle in to session topics at the >> next >> :>> Summit. >> :>> >> :>> The Ops meetup under its current format is mostly work sessions, and >> :>> those would fit pretty well in the PTG event format. Ideally I would >> :>> limit the feedback-gathering sessions there and use the Forum (and >> :>> regional events like OpenStack days) to collect it. That sounds like a >> :>> better way to reach out to "all users" and take into account their >> :>> feedback and needs... >> :>> >> :>> They are largely work sessions, but independent of the co-location >> :>> discussion, the UC is focused on improving the ability for tangible >> output >> :>> to come from Ops mid-cycles, OpenStack Days and regional meetups - >> largely >> :>> in the form of Forum sessions and ultimately changes in the software. >> So >> :>> we, as a committee, see a lot of similarities in what you just said. >> I'm >> :>> not bold enough to predict exactly how co-location might change the >> :>> tone/topic of the Ops sessions, but I agree that we shouldn't expect >> a lot >> :>> of real-time feedback time with devs at the PTG/mid-summit event >> (what ever >> :>> we end up calling it). We want the devs to be focused on what's >> already >> :>> planned for the N+1 version or beyond. The conversations/sessions at >> the >> :>> Ops portion of the event would hopefully lead to Forum sessions on N+2 >> :>> features, functions, bug fixes, etc >> :>> >> :>> Overall, I still see co-location as a positive move. There will be >> some >> :>> tricky bits we need to figure out between to the "two sides" of the >> event >> :>> as we want to MINIMIZE any perceived us/them between dev and ops - >> not add >> :>> to it. But, the work session themselves, should still honor the >> spirit of >> :>> the PTG and Ops Mid-cycle as they are today. We just get the added >> benefit >> :>> of time together as a whole community - and hopefully solve a few >> :>> logistic/finance/sponsorship/venue issues that trouble one event or >> the >> :>> other today. >> :>> >> :>> Thanks! >> :>> VW >> :>> -- >> :>> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> :>> >> :>> _______________________________________________ >> :>> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> :>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> :>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstac >> :>> k-operators >> :>> >> :>> >> :>> _______________________________________________ >> :>> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> :>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> :>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstac >> k-operators >> :>> >> :> >> :> >> :> >> :> -- >> :> Kind regards, >> :> >> :> Melvin Hillsman >> :> mrhills...@gmail.com >> :> mobile: (832) 264-2646 >> :> >> >> :_______________________________________________ >> :OpenStack-operators mailing list >> :OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> :http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> >> Yih Leong, Sun. <yihle...@gmail.com> >> March 22, 2018 at 11:02 PM >> I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. >> Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a >> try. >> >> Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to >> meet and offline discussion. :) >> >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> >> March 22, 2018 at 9:08 PM >> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very >> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2 >> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree >> with them here as I have in individual discussions. >> >> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least >> giving this a try. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> >> Melvin Hillsman >> mrhills...@gmail.com >> mobile: (832) 264-2646 >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> Matt Van Winkle <mvanw...@rackspace.com> >> March 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM >> Hey folks, >> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back >> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's >> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the Ops >> Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but have >> come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I respond >> to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points. >> >> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the >> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature >> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate >> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that >> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW the >> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the focus >> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has >> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know >> several who have found it valuable. >> >> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective >> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were occurring. >> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's purpose >> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in this >> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to >> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they have >> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated. For >> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just >> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold. >> >> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> >> <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: >> >> Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +0000: >> >> >> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the >> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with >> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends >> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the >> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time? >> > >> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor >> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but >> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the >> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle >> > would be convenient, for sure.) >> > >> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems >> > key. >> >> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that one >> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group >> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue for >> engaging with everyone in our community. >> >> The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their >> focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work >> items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are >> co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite >> other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of >> expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our >> geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and get >> work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to maximize >> the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who can't >> relate to any specific work group. >> >> Exactly. I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but >> it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG. We need this >> time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum sessions >> (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version. While some >> folks could drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle is just >> that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support across one, >> larger event - it should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the sessions >> Theirry describes above >> >> The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific >> discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum >> sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are >> defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event schedule, >> and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of >> attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It >> allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend much >> time getting more engaged and contribute back. >> >> Agreed. Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are so >> valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the software >> needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned behaviors >> might have on Operators and users. To Tim's earlier question, no I think >> this change doesn't reduce the need for Forum sessions. If anything, I >> think it increases the need for us to get REALLY good at channeling output >> from the Ops mid-cycle in to session topics at the next Summit. >> >> The Ops meetup under its current format is mostly work sessions, and >> those would fit pretty well in the PTG event format. Ideally I would >> limit the feedback-gathering sessions there and use the Forum (and >> regional events like OpenStack days) to collect it. That sounds like a >> better way to reach out to "all users" and take into account their >> feedback and needs... >> >> They are largely work sessions, but independent of the co-location >> discussion, the UC is focused on improving the ability for tangible output >> to come from Ops mid-cycles, OpenStack Days and regional meetups - largely >> in the form of Forum sessions and ultimately changes in the software. So >> we, as a committee, see a lot of similarities in what you just said. I'm >> not bold enough to predict exactly how co-location might change the >> tone/topic of the Ops sessions, but I agree that we shouldn't expect a lot >> of real-time feedback time with devs at the PTG/mid-summit event (what ever >> we end up calling it). We want the devs to be focused on what's already >> planned for the N+1 version or beyond. The conversations/sessions at the >> Ops portion of the event would hopefully lead to Forum sessions on N+2 >> features, functions, bug fixes, etc >> >> Overall, I still see co-location as a positive move. There will be some >> tricky bits we need to figure out between to the "two sides" of the event >> as we want to MINIMIZE any perceived us/them between dev and ops - not add >> to it. But, the work session themselves, should still honor the spirit of >> the PTG and Ops Mid-cycle as they are today. We just get the added benefit >> of time together as a whole community - and hopefully solve a few >> logistic/finance/sponsorship/venue issues that trouble one event or the >> other today. >> >> Thanks! >> VW >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> > > > -- > Kind regards, > > Melvin Hillsman > mrhills...@gmail.com > mobile: (832) 264-2646 > -- Kind regards, Melvin Hillsman mrhills...@gmail.com mobile: (832) 264-2646
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators