Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

Hi everyone, The Product WG is finalizing our mid-cycle plans and I wanted to confirm the conclusion of this thread to bring into that discussion... Reviewing the numerous responses here, it seems like the majority opted for option #1 (one 'official' ops mid-cycle but not precluding regional

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

I'm still fishing for more specific details, but here is a snapshot of how the Ceph Development Summit is handled. http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/CDS_Jewel It was previously done via Google Hangouts, but is now done using Bluejeans. This is interesting especially since I believe

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Erik McCormick wrote: > > 2) More technically we'll need to address the challenge of local > > sound, how to we ensure all the mostly spontaious talk in a large work > > session makes it to remote participants. Passing a mic is a bit

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 03:44:03PM -0500, Erik McCormick wrote: :I'm still fishing for more specific details, but here is a snapshot of :how the Ceph Development Summit is handled. : :http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/CDS_Jewel : :It was previously done via Google Hangouts, but is now

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Donald Talton <donaldtal...@fico.com<mailto:donaldtal...@fico.com>> wrote: I’ll +1 option 1 too, if we can get remote participation that would suffice. Having bee

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Donald Talton wrote: > I’ll +1 option 1 too, if we can get remote participation that would > suffice. > > > Having been to several of these I think that we can call remote participation a stretch goal at best, and if I'm being honest, I

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

Following up to what Matt said, even for the service (nova, cinder, etc) mid-cycles I've been in, typically only 1 or 2 folks participate remotely and they make sure to have someone pay attention/alert them when their topics are coming up. I don't think remote/virtual scales beyond 1-2 remote

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

r > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:48 AM > To: Donald Talton > Cc: Joe Topjian; Jonathan Proulx; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Donald Talton <d

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

ocess, pointers would be welcome. If not, we can certainly post >> to their list and ask for suggestions. I imagine Sage might pipe up >> with some interesting thoughts at the very least. >> >> > >> > >> > >> > From: tadow...@gmail.com [mailto:tado

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

>From my perspective we're happy to put in place anything that we can reasonably do, and that will increase participation. Bear in mind that we don't have massive amounts of money or people - the costs of the event as it stands is just about covered by the sponsors we have, and I'm putting most of

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/17/15 1:34 PM, Matt Jarvis wrote: > From my perspective we're happy to put in place anything that we > can reasonably do, and that will increase participation. Bear in > mind that we don't have massive amounts of money or people - the > costs

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

his idea. If we can gather the pertinent result from each > meeting, that would be ideal. > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com] > >Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:10 AM > >To: Donald Talton; Jonathan Proulx; > opens

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Erik McCormick wrote: > We're deciding not to innovate a solution to allow people to > participate in a group that is attempting to provide innovative ideas. > How ironic. I actually don't think it would require much innovation. >

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

I agree with all of the points that are being raised, but the inverse has been true for most of the European operators at every other midcycle. And the same presumably applies to the Asian operators. As OpenStack goes global, we need to find ways of bringing all those voices into the conversation.

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

AM To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. Hi All, 1st User Committee IRC meeting will be today at 19:00UTC on #openstack-meeting, we haven't exactly settled on an agenda yet but I hope to raise this issue the... It has been

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different responses that may be getting conflated. Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we look at ways to increase remote participation. (obviously this doesn't preclude other meetups) Option 2: There are

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

I thought we were working toward a regional approach rather than having an "official" single meetup. Are you proposing to scrap the North America meetup entirely? What does official vs. unofficial entail? -Erik On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: > Hi

[Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

Hi All, 1st User Committee IRC meeting will be today at 19:00UTC on #openstack-meeting, we haven't exactly settled on an agenda yet but I hope to raise this issue the... It has been suggested that we make the February 15-16 European Ops Meetup in Manchester UK [1] the 'official' OPs Midcycle.

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

enstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. +1 from me, although I am admittedly biased ;) Personally I think t

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

>you said, I would not be able to justify travel expenses for my staff >>(US-based) for a mid-cycle meetup. >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Jonathan Proulx [mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu] >>Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:51 AM >>To: openstack-operators@lists.ope

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

tors@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists. >openstack.org>" ><openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists. >openstack.org>> >:Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. >: >:+1 from me, alt

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>" < :> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>> :> :Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. :> : :> :+1 from me, although I am admittedly biase

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

t; <openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>> :Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. : :+1 from me, although I am admittedly biased ;) Personally I think the wider participation in the ops feedback loop can only

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

g openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>" < > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>> > :Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion. > : > :+1 from me, although I am admittedly biased ;) Personally I think th

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

+1 Option 1 On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: > > Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different > responses that may be getting conflated. > > Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we > look at ways to

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

I’ll +1 option 1 too, if we can get remote participation that would suffice. From: Joe Topjian [mailto:j...@topjian.net] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:57 PM To: Jonathan Proulx Cc: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

>> :H L Menken >> : >> : >> :From: Matt Jarvis <matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk> matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk>> >> :Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:23 AM >> :To: Jonathan Proulx <j...@csail.mit.edu<mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu>> >&g

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: > > Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different > responses that may be getting conflated. > > Option 1: There's a single Ops Midcycle that shifts around and we > look at ways to increase

Re: [Openstack-operators] OPs Midcycle location discussion.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Shamail wrote: > Hi, > >> On Nov 16, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: >> >> >> Let me restate the question a bit as I think I'm hearing two different >> responses that may be getting conflated. >> >> Option 1: