Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup event sizes

[Matt Jarvis]

Great feedback Anita - thank you :)

On 1 June 2016 at 20:42, Anita Kuno  wrote:

> On 06/01/2016 03:29 PM, David Medberry wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis <
> matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
> >> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
> >> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size.
> >>
> >
> > Two comments, points
> >
> > 1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very
> > poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on
> the
> > floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again,
> > primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have
> > everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had
> > for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind
> > of podium and audience layout.
> >
> > 2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably
> > max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size
> to
> > make progress in breakouts.
> >
> > So, I'm 300ish max.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> >
>
> I've attended the Palo Alto and Manchester Operators meetups.
>
> In Palo Alto (I don't have the size statistics) I talked with a handful
> of people, most of whom I knew already. I didn't have the energy to meet
> new people as I had concerns of being mobbed rather than considered as
> one participant in an active discussion.
>
> In Manchester (I don't know the size but I think it was more around 100)
> I met a lot of new people over the two days. I was much more comfortable
> having group chats with folks I didn't know (I had no visions of some
> group targeting me for interrupting) so I could relax and get to know
> some new folks, which was nice since for me this is my goal. In sessions
> we kept seeing the same faces so I learned some people's names and by
> the end was able to ensure folks were included (I chaired the feedback
> session) since I could acknowledge them by name and I hope they felt
> more participant than audience by the end.
>
> This is my own biased opinion, take it for what value you find in it.
>
> Thank you for asking the question, Matt,
> Anita.
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup event sizes

[Robert Starmer]

I'll second David's comments, and second the fact that the Manchester
layout seemed to work well.  The facility in Manchester provided a couple
secondary rooms plus a few much smaller rooms which I think generally
worked well. Having a tertiary area for meals/"networking" type engagements
should also be considered, that's effectively the 3rd breakout room.

But that still points to a max of < 300 people.  Otherwise you need
more/larger breakouts.


On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM, David Medberry 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis  > wrote:
>
>>
>> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
>> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
>> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size.
>>
>
> Two comments, points
>
> 1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very
> poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on the
> floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again,
> primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have
> everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had
> for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind
> of podium and audience layout.
>
> 2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably
> max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size to
> make progress in breakouts.
>
> So, I'm 300ish max.
>
> ___
> 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] Ops Meetup event sizes

[Anita Kuno]

On 06/01/2016 03:29 PM, David Medberry wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis 
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
>> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
>> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size.
>>
> 
> Two comments, points
> 
> 1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very
> poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on the
> floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again,
> primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have
> everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had
> for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind
> of podium and audience layout.
> 
> 2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably
> max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size to
> make progress in breakouts.
> 
> So, I'm 300ish max.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> 

I've attended the Palo Alto and Manchester Operators meetups.

In Palo Alto (I don't have the size statistics) I talked with a handful
of people, most of whom I knew already. I didn't have the energy to meet
new people as I had concerns of being mobbed rather than considered as
one participant in an active discussion.

In Manchester (I don't know the size but I think it was more around 100)
I met a lot of new people over the two days. I was much more comfortable
having group chats with folks I didn't know (I had no visions of some
group targeting me for interrupting) so I could relax and get to know
some new folks, which was nice since for me this is my goal. In sessions
we kept seeing the same faces so I learned some people's names and by
the end was able to ensure folks were included (I chaired the feedback
session) since I could acknowledge them by name and I hope they felt
more participant than audience by the end.

This is my own biased opinion, take it for what value you find in it.

Thank you for asking the question, Matt,
Anita.

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup event sizes

[David Medberry]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis 
wrote:

>
> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin
> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between
> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size.
>

Two comments, points

1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very
poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on the
floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again,
primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have
everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had
for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind
of podium and audience layout.

2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably
max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size to
make progress in breakouts.

So, I'm 300ish max.
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup event sizes

[Matt Jarvis]

+1

On 1 June 2016 at 16:54, Edgar Magana  wrote:

> I totally second Thierry. That was an excellent description of the
> importance of having the Ops sessions in these events.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgar
>
> On 6/1/16, 2:49 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:
>
> >Sam Morrison wrote:
> >> As an operator what should I prioritise now the main summit is changing,
> >> the thing formally known as the summit or the ops mid cycle?
> >>
> >> Will there be operator sessions at the summit still?
> >>
> >> Sorry if this has already been mentioned but still not 100% sure how
> >> operators fit into the new model.
> >
> >There will still very much be operator sessions at the Summit.
> >
> >The Summit is basically where all our community gets together, where we
> >can close the feedback loop between end users, operators and developers,
> >but also listen to future business needs, technology trends, new products.
> >
> >It is only one week though, and we need to make the best use of it,
> >taking advantage of the fact that everyone is around. So the change is
> >prioritizing cross-community sessions / on-boarding / communications
> >activities over more introspective team meetups and getting specific
> >things done.
> >
> >The way I see it, the Ops meetups would be where you go to exchange
> >operators best practices, discuss common pain points, come up with
> >priorities to feed back into development... The Summit would be where
> >you would complete that feedback loop by communicating those priorities
> >back to development, give direct feedback on your experience with the
> >last release, comment early on new efforts that are being proposed for a
> >future development cycle, meet with end users, learn about new projects,
> >new tools and tricks... One is Ops-centric, and the other is about
> >meeting and engaging with everyone else.
> >
> >So the activities at both events will be slightly different but Ops
> >presence is needed at both.
> >
> >--
> >Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> >___
> >OpenStack-operators mailing list
> >OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Doperators=CwICAg=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=YInj1ZroIMD5Xc4hWUydLD_5GleDCwYEUrNh06SSUUU=Pb8NuU3XMY9ziZTTOe9YJh4ZZilk8VYHjOylHpQDcPc=
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup event sizes

[Edgar Magana]

I totally second Thierry. That was an excellent description of the importance 
of having the Ops sessions in these events.

Cheers,

Edgar

On 6/1/16, 2:49 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:

>Sam Morrison wrote:
>> As an operator what should I prioritise now the main summit is changing,
>> the thing formally known as the summit or the ops mid cycle?
>>
>> Will there be operator sessions at the summit still?
>>
>> Sorry if this has already been mentioned but still not 100% sure how
>> operators fit into the new model.
>
>There will still very much be operator sessions at the Summit.
>
>The Summit is basically where all our community gets together, where we 
>can close the feedback loop between end users, operators and developers, 
>but also listen to future business needs, technology trends, new products.
>
>It is only one week though, and we need to make the best use of it, 
>taking advantage of the fact that everyone is around. So the change is 
>prioritizing cross-community sessions / on-boarding / communications 
>activities over more introspective team meetups and getting specific 
>things done.
>
>The way I see it, the Ops meetups would be where you go to exchange 
>operators best practices, discuss common pain points, come up with 
>priorities to feed back into development... The Summit would be where 
>you would complete that feedback loop by communicating those priorities 
>back to development, give direct feedback on your experience with the 
>last release, comment early on new efforts that are being proposed for a 
>future development cycle, meet with end users, learn about new projects, 
>new tools and tricks... One is Ops-centric, and the other is about 
>meeting and engaging with everyone else.
>
>So the activities at both events will be slightly different but Ops 
>presence is needed at both.
>
>-- 
>Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>___
>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Doperators=CwICAg=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=YInj1ZroIMD5Xc4hWUydLD_5GleDCwYEUrNh06SSUUU=Pb8NuU3XMY9ziZTTOe9YJh4ZZilk8VYHjOylHpQDcPc=
> 

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] [osops] OSOps meeting today in #openstack-meeting-4 1900 UTC

[Joseph Bajin]

Everyone,

We are going to be canceling today's meeting. For some reason, we are now
off the schedule of odd-weeks, so we are bumping up against another groups
meeting.This would mean that we are moving our meeting to next week to
get back on the odd week schedule.

Thanks

Joe

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Joseph Bajin <josephba...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Operators,
>
> Our bi-weekly meeting is today in the #openstack-meeting-4 room beginning
> at 1900 UTC.
>
> There isn't much on the agenda today, as we haven't gotten a lot of
> participation or volunteering.   You can review the agenda here. [1]   If
> you have anything that you think the Operators community can help with,
> please come join the conversation.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe
>
>
> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osops-irc-meeting-20160601
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Neutron database upgrade kilo-liberty and parallel Alembic migration branches

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

> On 01 Jun 2016, at 14:49, Saverio Proto  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> reading this documentation page:
> 
> http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/networking-guide/migration-neutron-database.html
> 
> I dont get what means having two parallel migration branches.
> 
> Do you have to choose one of the branches ? If yes how ?
> 
> 
> Or it just means that some operations can be safely run when Neutron
> Server API is running, (e.g.
> neutron-db-manage upgrade --expand)
> 
> while other operations (e.g. neutron-db-manage upgrade --contract)
> require the Neutron Server to be stopped ??
> 

The latter. If you think the documentation is deficient, please propose a patch 
that would clarify that.

> Anyone has some upgrade notes to share that can clarify the procedure ?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Saverio
> 
> ___
> 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] Neutron database upgrade kilo-liberty and parallel Alembic migration branches

[Saverio Proto]

Hello,

reading this documentation page:

http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/networking-guide/migration-neutron-database.html

I dont get what means having two parallel migration branches.

Do you have to choose one of the branches ? If yes how ?


Or it just means that some operations can be safely run when Neutron
Server API is running, (e.g.
neutron-db-manage upgrade --expand)

while other operations (e.g. neutron-db-manage upgrade --contract)
require the Neutron Server to be stopped ??

Anyone has some upgrade notes to share that can clarify the procedure ?

Thank you

Saverio

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

[Openstack-operators] [osops] OSOps meeting today in #openstack-meeting-4 1900 UTC

[Joseph Bajin]

Operators,

Our bi-weekly meeting is today in the #openstack-meeting-4 room beginning
at 1900 UTC.

There isn't much on the agenda today, as we haven't gotten a lot of
participation or volunteering.   You can review the agenda here. [1]   If
you have anything that you think the Operators community can help with,
please come join the conversation.


Thanks

Joe


[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osops-irc-meeting-20160601
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup event sizes

[Sam Morrison]

As an operator what should I prioritise now the main summit is changing, the 
thing formally known as the summit or the ops mid cycle?

Will there be operator sessions at the summit still?

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but still not 100% sure how operators 
fit into the new model.

Cheers,
Sam


> On 1 Jun 2016, at 6:12 PM, Matt Jarvis  wrote:
> 
> Hi All
> 
> As part of the work we've been doing on the Ops Meetups Team working group, 
> we've recently had some discussion on the ideal attendee numbers for future 
> Ops Mid Cycles which we'd like as much feedback as possible on from the wider 
> community.
> 
> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin 
> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between 150-200 
> attendees should be the maximum size. 
> 
> The thinking behind this has been ( in no particular order ) : 
> 
> 1. The aim of the events is to encourage active participation, and there is 
> an optimal session size for this ( ~ 50 - 100 people )
> 2. Keep the events mainly focused on operators and developers attending
> 3. Bigger events are more difficult to organise and deliver - challenges of 
> wifi, finding appropriate venues, more logistical staff needed, larger sums 
> of sponsorship to be raised etc.
> 
> The Ops Meetups Team would welcome input from as many of you all as possible 
> on this topic, so what are your thoughts ? 
> 
> Matt
> 
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 
> 05611763___
> 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