> Wouldn't that raise fairness issues regarding which talks are scheduled > to happen in parallel with the BoF sessions, as compared to the ones > that are not? I am not convinced it would. If there was one BoF discussion going on in parallel to the track in the afternoon, I wouldn't expect that more than a dozen or so people would come to a specific discussion. It'll create a degree of competition with the main program, but that would exist also if we had two tracks. We had around 100-150 people attend the summit in the past. Am not convinced this will be a big issue. The alternative is to just set up the second room as hacker space and as a space for "in-corridor" meetings and have no tool to schedule.
> Also, won't the "let's have everyone in one room" be covered by the > Devs/Committers/Maintainers Meeting, of course, if we have one Yes, but I expect that 1/2 wont be enough and that there are bound to be follow-up discussions, which need maybe a few core devs. Lars On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com>wrote: > On gio, 2013-08-08 at 15:20 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > Option 2) We could use the second room for in-depth discussions > (using > > > > an unconference scheduling mechanism as we have done at the > Hackathon: > > > > if you want to know how this works do read > > > > > http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2013/05/28/event-report-xen-hackathon-2013/- > > > > we would use a simplified version of the mechanism described). These > > > > would run in parallel to the main program, for example in the > afternoon. > > > > In other words, we would have "BoF type meetings decided on the day" > or > > > > "hacking sessions" or "get started with X" or "how do we solve > problem > > > > Z" etc. that would happen in the second room in parallel to talks. > > > > > +1 > > > > I concur with Jan. There is already so much going on that week with LKS > > and LinuxCon, XenSummit, and meeting other people in the halls - that > > having everybody in one room would make it much easier to have > discussions. > > > > Instead of trying to find some "time" to talk to them and potentially not > > having enough people in the discussion. > > > I tend to agree, especially since I liked the hackathon format and > outcome. However, one concern I have with 2) is, who's been listening to > the talks from the main program in RoomA, if everyone is in RoomB having > "fun" discussions? > > Wouldn't that raise fairness issues regarding which talks are scheduled > to happen in parallel with the BoF sessions, as compared to the ones > that are not? > > As I said, I liked it for the hackathon but that was, well, the > hackathon... In this case I fear it could be a bit both rude and > pointless to ask people to submit talks for the summit and then have > noone listening to the presentations, because everyone is in the room > next door! :-O > > Or did I misunderstand something and there is no risk of that? > > Also, won't the "let's have everyone in one room" be covered by the > Devs/Committers/Maintainers Meeting, of course, if we have one? > > Thanks and Regards, > Dario > > -- > <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli > Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) > >
_______________________________________________ Xen-api mailing list Xen-api@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
