All,
I've created and shared the Connection Sessions spreadsheet, you can
find it here -
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnK-Uyci_D20dFlUX1ZOVm5LWDVudkxJM1B0aS1FWWc#gid=0.
Arwen is happy that that spreadsheet will be used for the session
planning. I've added some topics and champions, please contact me to arrange
more / discuss how best to organise things moving forward. If you want a
hint, see what Amit's done...
Dave
On 23 Apr 2012, at 16:47, David Rusling wrote:
> All,
> thank you for a lively discussion. I think that there's some very
> good ideas floating about. It's clear that we all care passionately about
> make Linaro Connect as good as it can possibly be. Some comments:
>
> [1] What is the problem that we're trying to solve? It is, in my view, is
> trying to ensure that everyone important to each discussion is able to be
> there so that the right decisions take place
> I saw some clashes at the last event where meetings were empty or moved so
> that the right people were there. I think that this was because we didn't
> look across the booking 'silos' before the week itself
> Linux kernel intersects most of our problem areas and that makes the kernel
> experts a scarce resource and a critical path on scheduling
>
> [2] It's a slice and dice problem with most things being group based.
> I don't think that each WG needs to stay together for the morning (technical)
> sessions, but they do for the afternoon hacking sessions (mostly)
> Zach's point about avoiding silos is a good one
>
> [3] We give the mandate to solve 'heavy lifting' problems to particular groups
> The graphics WG is the right 'center of gravity' for UMM, for example
> but the overlap between groups can be quite large (especially platforms which
> is where the technologies come together)
>
> [4] Kiko's suggestion was to group the sessions by topic (big.LITTLE) and
> area (architecture) and Zach's suggestion was to have topic champion
> (continuous integration). Practically, some of this is already happening,
> for example with Amit pulling together all the big.LITTLE sessions (switcher
> and MP).
>
> Here's my suggestion:
>
> [1] Take Kiko's 'table' as the basis and transcribe it into the Connect
> planning spreadsheets maintained by Arwen etc. That gives us {topic, area,
> contents}
> [2] Nominate and agree champions / engineering teams to own each topic (add
> two columns {champion, team}. The champions could be the TL, they could be
> nominated by them, they don't have to work in the team that 'owns' the topic.
> [3] Have the champions own creating the sessions and ensuring that the right
> people (key decision makers) are signed up. In effect, one of their roles
> is to work across silos.
>
> Let's leave aside how the summit tool could show a schedule by topic or
> whether we'd have 'topic leader' shirts made for now.
>
> I'm happy to own [1] and support [2] and [3].
>
> Makes sense?
>
> Dave
>
>
> David Rusling, CTO
>
> Linaro
> Lockton House
> Clarendon Rd
> Cambridge
> CB2 8FH
>
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
