Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= snip I agree on all those too. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. I think everyone agrees this is best kept as low a barrier as possible. It would be interesting to know per attendee costs to help assess what kind of barrier it would be. Obviously if we get some corporate underwriting that meets the 'we all agree' low impact desires that would help minimize this and if it can be zero it should be. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. I think breaking into regional events would seriously undermine the utility of the event unless someone has a really clever idea how to run 3 or 4 locations as a single distributed event so we can actually gather and share ideas among all of them (I don't see how that would work). I am uncomfortable with the US-centric nature of the ops events even though it's been terribly convenient for me. I would suggest if we so start rotating continents (which I'm in favor of) we try and keep it opposite the summit locations so those least likely to make the summit are most likely to make the mid cycle that way no region gets left too far behind. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. I think it's best to try addressing this socially at first. Make it clear space is at a premium and encourage attendees to send the minimum number of people necessary to cover the sessions. Setting a hard limit is hard because I can imagine larger and more complex sites may have a legitimate need to send more people due to greater role specialization or other reasons. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. I'm not even sure what I think is best here, but these are my thoughts: More tracks makes it harder for small to medium size sites to cover. Not saying we shouldn't expand parallelism but we should be cautious. My site is a private university cloud with order of 100 hypervisors, we're more or less happy to send 2 people to summits and one to mid cycles, at least that's what I've gotten them to pay for in the past. Obviously we don't come close to covering summits. The dual track (for one attendee) in PHL was OK and conflicts weren't too bad. The obvious alternative if we need more sessions would be to go longer and honestly I'm not keen on that either and would probably prefer wider over longer. -Jon ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jonathan Proulx j...@jonproulx.com wrote: More tracks makes it harder for small to medium size sites to cover. Not saying we shouldn't expand parallelism but we should be cautious. My site is a private university cloud with order of 100 hypervisors, we're more or less happy to send 2 people to summits and one to mid cycles, at least that's what I've gotten them to pay for in the past. Obviously we don't come close to covering summits. The dual track (for one attendee) in PHL was OK and conflicts weren't too bad. The obvious alternative if we need more sessions would be to go longer and honestly I'm not keen on that either and would probably prefer wider over longer. +1 on wider vs longer. if we do go longer, let's limit it to half-day expansion (so folks can fly in or out that half day.) Of course if it is in Timbuktu, that 1/2 day won't buy much in terms of maximizing commute time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: BoD, unless they feel the need to delegate, at which point then maybe an Operators committee. But I'd hate to see more committees created. I feel like this may be a User Committee thing, which is an existing committee and sort-of-kind-of how this started I think. Granted that's a bit of a shadowy cabal at this point but hopefully we're on a path to a better place with that... -Jon - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Matt Fischer m...@mattfischer.com wrote: Are you proposing an Operators committee or do you mean the OpenStack BoD? On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill to me. Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) Maybe you could host in Taiwan Tom or Tim could host in Geneva/CERN? ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: Right now developers are asking for details so they can decide/plan on attending the next event. Are you close to deciding a location and/or perhaps some dates? Yep, this is becoming a big issue. Several others are just going to stomp all over August as they schedule their meetups. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On 06/30/2015 12:33 AM, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators Hi: Right now developers are asking for details so they can decide/plan on attending the next event. Are you close to deciding a location and/or perhaps some dates? Thanks, Anita. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On 07/06/2015 05:38 PM, Allison Price wrote: Hi everyone, We are currently finalizing the exact date and location for the ops meetup. We have two strong options that Tom will share more details on shortly, but we are aiming to hold the meetup the week of August 17 -21, leaning towards the beginning of the week so it does not conflict with OpenStack Day Seattle. We will be sharing more information shortly, but I wanted to put this on everyone’s radar as you plan travel and other meetups in August. Thanks, Allison Allison Price OpenStack Marketing alli...@openstack.org Thank you, Allison, having the dates help. (Or at least the range of dates.) Thank you, Anita. On Jul 6, 2015, at 1:16 PM, David Medberry openst...@medberry.net wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info mailto:ante...@anteaya.info wrote: Right now developers are asking for details so they can decide/plan on attending the next event. Are you close to deciding a location and/or perhaps some dates? Yep, this is becoming a big issue. Several others are just going to stomp all over August as they schedule their meetups. ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill to me. Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Are you proposing an Operators committee or do you mean the OpenStack BoD? On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill to me. Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) Many thanks. I know this is a bit of a PITA. In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? Don't care if it is more open. I wish it would be more timely. If making it more open makes the decision and locale c more timely, all for open. What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? The perfect is the enemy of the good (or something like malapropically paraphrased.) We like to say, JFDI. Name a spot, name a limit, make a reservation tool (or use an existing one like eventbrite), consider having pocket overflow amount you / someone judicially administers. -d ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
BoD, unless they feel the need to delegate, at which point then maybe an Operators committee. But I'd hate to see more committees created. - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Matt Fischer m...@mattfischer.com wrote: Are you proposing an Operators committee or do you mean the OpenStack BoD? On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill to me. Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
I just assumed this whole outfit was ran by some shadowy kabal. I feel very disillusioned now. -Matt On July 2, 2015 2:26:47 PM EDT, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: BoD, unless they feel the need to delegate, at which point then maybe an Operators committee. But I'd hate to see more committees created. - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Matt Fischer m...@mattfischer.com wrote: Are you proposing an Operators committee or do you mean the OpenStack BoD? On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill to me. Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
+1 On July 2, 2015 2:15:02 PM EDT, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote: Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill to me. Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? - jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the discussion ... Venue selection process. At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do you think? What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? Regards, Tom On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Team, It's great to see so much passion! :) Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. =Things we tend to agree on= Spirit of the event * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. Multiple Sponsors * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with only modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. Current Schedule Format * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but could do with minor tweaks. =Things still under discussion= Sell Tickets * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, but the question remains to what extent this should be priced (low fee? $100-200? cover costs?). A strong counterpoint was that paid ticketing makes it less accessible (see spirit), prevents some local attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted that it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. Break into Regional Events * A number of viewpoints, ranging from multiple regional events to one event only [maybe with a travel fund] to one event that moves around [maybe even outside USA] to make it in the centre of USA for easier travel on average. Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. Multiple Tracks * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. Evening Event * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. Lightening Talks * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming show and tell. More of them? Arranged differently? Unclear. =Ideas= * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund * Use Universities during the summer break for venues =Open Questions= * How will the number of attendees grow? * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this Regards, Tom On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
I agree with all of these items especially with not having Vendor booths. The only thing I would want to mention is that it would be great to have something centrally located within the US, if we are going to choose the US for a session. That way it is only a 3-4 hour flight instead of a 7-9 hour event like going from West Coast to the East Coast. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Kevin Carter kevin.car...@rackspace.com wrote: I'm very much in favor of scaling up the Ops meetup and doing so with no vendor booths, modest registration fees, dropping the evening event (if needed), and creating an alternating North American / other local. I don't know what I can do specifically to help out here but if I can help, in any way, to make some of this go put me down as available. -- Kevin Carter -- *From:* Mike Dorman mdor...@godaddy.com *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 6:10 PM *To:* Jesse Keating; Matt Fischer *Cc:* OpenStack Operators *Subject:* Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup I pretty much agree with everyone so far. No vendor booths, distributed “underwriters”, modest registration fee, and sans evening event. Not sure separate regional meetings are a good idea, but would be in favor of alternating North America vs. other region, like the summits. I’ve been looking for approximate meal sponsorship costs, too. We may have funds available for some sort of underwriting as well, but the first question I get when going to ask for that is “how much $?” So it’s difficult to get sponsorship commitments without those details. Could you let us know some ballpark figures based on past events, so we have some more data points? Thanks!! Mike From: Jesse Keating Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Matt Fischer Cc: OpenStack Operators Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup RE Evening event: I agree it was pretty crowded. Perhaps just a list of area venues for various activities and a sign up board somewhere. Let it happen organically, and everybody is on their own for paying for whatever they do. That way those that may not be into the bar scene don't feel left out because everybody else went and got drink/food. Lets eliminate the social pressure to put everybody into the same social event. - jlk On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Matt Fischer m...@mattfischer.com wrote: My votes line up with Dave's and Joe's pretty much. I think that vendor booth's are a bad idea as well. As for registration, I think having a fee that covers the meals/coffee is fair. This is not a typical walk in off the street meeting. I don't think many companies would balk at an extra $100-$200 fee for registration. Especially if you're already paying for travel like 99% of us will be doing. I'm also +1 canceling the evening event to cut costs, it was overcrowded last time and with 300 people will be unmanageable. Tom, What is the actual per-head price range for meals? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Joe Topjian j...@topjian.net wrote: -1 on paid registration, I think we need to be mindful of the smaller openstack deployers, their voice is an important one, and their access to the larger operations teams is invaluable to them. I like the idea of local teams showing up because it's in the neighborhood and they don't need to hassle their budgeting managers too much for travel approval / expenses. This is more accessible currently than the summits for many operators. Let's keep it that way. I understand your point. IMO, the Ops mid-cycle meetup is a little different than a normal local meetup you'll find at meetup.com. It's a multi-day event that includes meals and an evening event. Being able to attend for free, while a great goal, may not be practical. I would not imagine that the fee would be as much as a Summit ticket, nor even broken down to the daily cost of a Summit ticket. I see it as something that would go toward the cost of food and such. The OpenStack foundation does a lot to ensure that people who are unable to pay registration fees are still able to attend summits. The same courtesy could be extended here as well. As an example, David M has mentioned that TWC may help (I understand that may not be official, just used as an example of how others may be willing to help with that area). Joe ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
+1 (we had 2 people at the mid-cycle last time, so we would not have been impacted by this) When there are multiple 4+ breakout sessions going on at the same time and they are all (hopefully) relevant to you/your company? I would agree that if someone had 20+ people from a single company going, that the return on investment would be diminished, but I am not sure that should be something that should enforced by the foundation. Kris Lindgren Senior Linux Systems Engineer GoDaddy, LLC. From: Matt Fischer m...@mattfischer.commailto:m...@mattfischer.com Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 6:22 PM To: Edgar Magana edgar.mag...@workday.commailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com Cc: OpenStack Operators openstack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup I strongly disagree with a quota system. If for nothing else then that there's no fair way to do it. But more importantly this is a community, not a Senate meeting and all contributors should be welcome. How would you explain to someone who regularly contributes that they cannot attend due to a quota? On Jun 30, 2015 5:48 PM, Edgar Magana edgar.mag...@workday.commailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com wrote: Tom, In my opinion, we should not have booths at all. Actually, we should just only have Operators attending this meetup with a limit of three attendees by company. During the Philadelphia one I noticed that many of the attendees where from the same company and I do not believe those companies need to send so many people. About the vendors, they have their opportunity during the OpenStack Summit, let's just keep it that way. Operators meetup should be a space were we can share best practices, issues, concerns and anything that we consider sharable with the rest of the community. It should not be a space for vendors to collect information about details of what we are deploying and how we are doing it. Let's try to build a safe space to share all this important knowledge. I also wanted to bring to your attention that during the summit the attendance was lower that in the mid-cycle one (Philadelphia). Probably because there are so many things running in parallel that people just need to decide between very important sessions. So, does it make sense to have four Operators meetups along the year? Maybe not! What about just having the mid-cycle ones? Thanks, Edgar On 6/29/15, 9:33 PM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.orgmailto:t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Tom, First off, thank you for organizing this event. It has proven to be a success and the growth shows how much interest there is in the community. A couple of ideas came to mind when I read your e-mail. What about breaking the event up into regions? Or having additional sponsors that are users instead of vendors? Just like we have had corporate sponsors in the past that have been operators, can we find more of those to split the costs? Another thought that comes to mind is having ticket sales for the event with a cap? A concern I have is that if you grow the ops mid cycle summit too much, the access may get diluted and many of the benefits can get lost. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Hi Tom, et al, 1) I think corporate operators are fine sponsors (or as I prefer, underwriters) of the event. But with modest/token acknowledgement only of their largesse. * 2) No vendor booths. I'm fine with an Oprah sponsorship goodie bag on the chairs or at registration time, but nothing more overt than that. We don't have time as it is to do all the intermingling/discussing we need to do. Vendor booths would just make this PAINFUL. 3) Venue selection will continue to get tougher. If no venue has been selected at this point, I'd say the L mid-cycle is at great risk. Finding a venue and a funding mechanism needs to happen now.* * with respect to Time Warner Cable, I'm garnering the support needed to help with venue/meal funding. No specific commitments should be inferred at this point. On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Hi Tom, I think this is a great problem to have. Difficult to solve, but it shows how popular / important these meetups are. I'm definitely in favor of a no booths type meetup. I feel if a company wants to sponsor, they're doing it out of good will and any recognition would come from that. I'd love to keep the meetups as inclusive as possible. I found the Philadelphia meetup to be extremely valuable networking-wise (as well as extremely valuable in general). A lot of people I talked to may not have attended if there was some kind of bar placed on entry. I think the current schedule format is still working: open discussions bring in a lot of feedback and tips, working groups continue to shape and produce actions. Open discussions may become unwieldy as attendance grows, but maybe having two tracks would solve that. Do you have a good indication that the number of attendees will continue to grow? Maybe it has hit (or will soon hit) a steady level? I wouldn't be opposed to having a paid registration for the meetup. Could the amount be polled if paid registration is considered? Thanks, Tom. I don't envy your position, but I do very much appreciate the work that goes into planning this. :) Joe On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Joe Topjian j...@topjian.net wrote: I wouldn't be opposed to having a paid registration for the meetup. Could the amount be polled if paid registration is considered? We (TWC) is also in favor of having paid registration as well as a slush fund for scholarships/fee waivers for contributors on an as-needed basis. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
+1 on the no booths rule. -1 on paid registration, I think we need to be mindful of the smaller openstack deployers, their voice is an important one, and their access to the larger operations teams is invaluable to them. I like the idea of local teams showing up because it's in the neighborhood and they don't need to hassle their budgeting managers too much for travel approval / expenses. This is more accessible currently than the summits for many operators. Let's keep it that way. -matt On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Joe Topjian j...@topjian.net wrote: Hi Tom, I think this is a great problem to have. Difficult to solve, but it shows how popular / important these meetups are. I'm definitely in favor of a no booths type meetup. I feel if a company wants to sponsor, they're doing it out of good will and any recognition would come from that. I'd love to keep the meetups as inclusive as possible. I found the Philadelphia meetup to be extremely valuable networking-wise (as well as extremely valuable in general). A lot of people I talked to may not have attended if there was some kind of bar placed on entry. I think the current schedule format is still working: open discussions bring in a lot of feedback and tips, working groups continue to shape and produce actions. Open discussions may become unwieldy as attendance grows, but maybe having two tracks would solve that. Do you have a good indication that the number of attendees will continue to grow? Maybe it has hit (or will soon hit) a steady level? I wouldn't be opposed to having a paid registration for the meetup. Could the amount be polled if paid registration is considered? Thanks, Tom. I don't envy your position, but I do very much appreciate the work that goes into planning this. :) Joe On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Hi Tom, thanks for bringing up the subject. Like many commenters I share some of the same views. I'm very +1 on preventing vendor booth space from happening. This isn't an event to sell a product, booth space would be wasted on both the attendees and the booth staff. I feel that multiple corporate underwriters for the event would not only be welcome, but encouraged. We're all working together even while competing to make OpenStack awesome, there should be no barrier to multiple entities sharing the burden of funding (parts) of the event. I think a modest attendee fee would be acceptable as well, given the sponsorship capability demonstrated by Foundation at previous events. These meetups are invaluable to us the attendees and to the organizations that choose to foot the bill for flights and hotels, because the return on that investment is quite high. Adding on an attendee fee wouldn't really make a huge difference in the total cost, but it would help out the event. As far as regional, that's a hard one. I wouldn't necessarily want to split the meeting into multiple of them. I'd rather see pooling of funds for travel assistance to get those who are not geographically close to the event in. I'd definitely be in favor of moving the event around, more than just North America. These meetups are worth the cost of travel. I do like the session layout, but I'd like to see a couple more things. I'd like to see a lightening talk session. Much like the ops show and tell, or maybe even just expand ops show and tell to also include lightening sessions. Not a full session like at Summit, but just 10~ minutes to talk about an interesting topic or challenge or project. We can fit a lot more speakers in and drive up the inclusion factor without taking up a huge amount of time or having the problem of 20 things happening at once. The next thing I'd like to see is some video recording support, for those that really can't make it but would love to see the sessions after the fact. Here, starting small and growing is totally awesome too, no need to shoot for 100% coverage the first time. Thanks again for bringing the topic up to the community! - jlk On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ 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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
I pretty much agree with everyone so far. No vendor booths, distributed “underwriters”, modest registration fee, and sans evening event. Not sure separate regional meetings are a good idea, but would be in favor of alternating North America vs. other region, like the summits. I’ve been looking for approximate meal sponsorship costs, too. We may have funds available for some sort of underwriting as well, but the first question I get when going to ask for that is “how much $?” So it’s difficult to get sponsorship commitments without those details. Could you let us know some ballpark figures based on past events, so we have some more data points? Thanks!! Mike From: Jesse Keating Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Matt Fischer Cc: OpenStack Operators Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup RE Evening event: I agree it was pretty crowded. Perhaps just a list of area venues for various activities and a sign up board somewhere. Let it happen organically, and everybody is on their own for paying for whatever they do. That way those that may not be into the bar scene don't feel left out because everybody else went and got drink/food. Lets eliminate the social pressure to put everybody into the same social event. - jlk On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Matt Fischer m...@mattfischer.commailto:m...@mattfischer.com wrote: My votes line up with Dave's and Joe's pretty much. I think that vendor booth's are a bad idea as well. As for registration, I think having a fee that covers the meals/coffee is fair. This is not a typical walk in off the street meeting. I don't think many companies would balk at an extra $100-$200 fee for registration. Especially if you're already paying for travel like 99% of us will be doing. I'm also +1 canceling the evening event to cut costs, it was overcrowded last time and with 300 people will be unmanageable. Tom, What is the actual per-head price range for meals? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Joe Topjian j...@topjian.netmailto:j...@topjian.net wrote: -1 on paid registration, I think we need to be mindful of the smaller openstack deployers, their voice is an important one, and their access to the larger operations teams is invaluable to them. I like the idea of local teams showing up because it's in the neighborhood and they don't need to hassle their budgeting managers too much for travel approval / expenses. This is more accessible currently than the summits for many operators. Let's keep it that way. I understand your point. IMO, the Ops mid-cycle meetup is a little different than a normal local meetup you'll find at meetup.comhttp://meetup.com. It's a multi-day event that includes meals and an evening event. Being able to attend for free, while a great goal, may not be practical. I would not imagine that the fee would be as much as a Summit ticket, nor even broken down to the daily cost of a Summit ticket. I see it as something that would go toward the cost of food and such. The OpenStack foundation does a lot to ensure that people who are unable to pay registration fees are still able to attend summits. The same courtesy could be extended here as well. As an example, David M has mentioned that TWC may help (I understand that may not be official, just used as an example of how others may be willing to help with that area). Joe ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.orgmailto: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
Re: [Openstack-operators] Scaling the Ops Meetup
Tom, In my opinion, we should not have booths at all. Actually, we should just only have Operators attending this meetup with a limit of three attendees by company. During the Philadelphia one I noticed that many of the attendees where from the same company and I do not believe those companies need to send so many people. About the vendors, they have their opportunity during the OpenStack Summit, let’s just keep it that way. Operators meetup should be a space were we can share best practices, issues, concerns and anything that we consider sharable with the rest of the community. It should not be a space for vendors to collect information about details of what we are deploying and how we are doing it. Let’s try to build a safe space to share all this important knowledge. I also wanted to bring to your attention that during the summit the attendance was lower that in the mid-cycle one (Philadelphia). Probably because there are so many things running in parallel that people just need to decide between very important sessions. So, does it make sense to have four Operators meetups along the year? Maybe not! What about just having the mid-cycle ones? Thanks, Edgar On 6/29/15, 9:33 PM, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote: Hi all, Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for next ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest assured it is happening. Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the size of event where both physically and financially, only the largest organisations can host us. We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with a single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of the event. However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to sponsor food. This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion of how we want to scale this event :) So far I've heard things like: * my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with others * I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the ops meetup Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of what to take this forward with. So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side of things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the growing numbers of attendees? Current data can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events have only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can address that issue. Regards, Tom ___ 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
