On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:38 AM, German Eichberger <german.eichber...@rackspace.com> wrote: > It looks like the implicit expectation is that devs also need to attend the > Forums at the summit in addition to the PTG. The Forums, though important, > hardly made it worthwhile for me to attend the summit (and in fact I skipped > Sydney). On the other hand some devs got together and hashed out some plans > for their projects. Personally, I feel the PTG is not working if we also > have summits – and having two summits and one PTG will make things worse. > Therefore I propose to scrap the PTG and add “design summits” back to the > OpenStack summit. As a side effect this will be a better on-ramp for casual +1. If one of the purpose is to save developers' travel cost, this idea works. Besides this, it is important for the developers to hear voice from users/operators who attend the current summits. > developers who can’t justify going to the PTG and ensure enough developers > are on-hand to hear the operator’s feedback. > > > > German > > > > From: Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:15 AM > > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles > > > > The forums would seem to provide a good opportunity for get togethers during > the release cycle. With these happening April/May and October/November, > there could be a good chance for productive team discussions and the > opportunities to interact with the user/operator community. > > > > There is a risk that deployment to production is delayed, and therefore > feedback is delayed and the wait for the ‘initial bug fixes before we deploy > to prod’ gets longer. > > > > If there is consensus, I’d suggest to get feedback from openstack-operators > on the idea. My initial suspicion is that it would be welcomed, especially > by those running from distros, but there are many different perspectives. > > > > Tim > > > > From: Amy Marrich <a...@demarco.com> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2017 at 18:58 > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles > > > > I think Sean has made some really good points with the PTG setting things > off in the start of the year and conversations carrying over to the Forums > and their importance. And having a gap at the end of the year as Jay > mentioned will give time for those still about to do finishing work if > needed and if it's planned for in the individual projects they can have an > earlier 'end' to allow for members not being around. > > > > The one year release would help to get 'new' users to adopt a more recent > release, even if it's the one from the year previously as there is the > 'confidence' that it's been around for a bit and been used by others in > production. And if projects want to do incrementals they can, if I've read > the thread correctly. Also those that want the latest will just use master > anyways as some do currently. > > > > With the move to a yearly cycle I agree with the 1 year cycle for PTLs, > though if needed perhaps a way to have a co-PTL or a LT could be implemented > to help with the longer duties? > > > > My 2 cents from the peanut gallery:) > > > > Amy (spotz) > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcgin...@gmx.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:16:35PM +0000, Chris Jones wrote: >> Hey >> >> On 13 December 2017 at 17:12, Jimmy McArthur <ji...@openstack.org> wrote: >> >> > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> > >> >> - It doesn't mean that teams can only meet in-person once a year. >> >> Summits would still provide a venue for team members to have an >> >> in-person meeting. I also expect a revival of the team-organized >> >> midcycles to replace the second PTG for teams that need or want to meet >> >> more often. >> >> >> > The PTG seems to allow greater coordination between groups. I worry that >> > going back to an optional mid-cycle would reduce this >> > cross-collaboration, >> > while also reducing project face-to-face time. >> >> >> I can't speak for the Foundation, but I would think it would be good to >> have an official PTG in the middle of the cycle (perhaps neatly aligned >> with some kind of milestone/event) that lets people discuss plans for >> finishing off the release, and early work they want to get started on for >> the subsequent release). The problem with team-organised midcycles (as I'm >> sure everyone remembers), is that there's little/no opportunity for >> cross-project work. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Chris > > This was one of my concerns initially too. We may have to see how things go > and > course correct once we have a little more data to go on. But the thought (or > at > least the hope) was that we could get by with using the one PTG early in the > cycle to get alignment, then though IRC, the mailing list, and the Forums > (keep > in mind there will be two Forums within the cycle) we would be able to keep > things going and discuss any cross project concerns. > > This may actually get more emphasis on developers attending the Forum. I > think > that is one part of our PTG/Design Summit split that has not fully settled > the > way we had hoped. The Forum is still encouraged for developers to attend. > But I > think the reality has been many companies now just see the Summit as a > marketing event and see no reason to send any developers. > > I can say from the last couple Forum experiences, a lot of really good > discussions have happened there. It's really been unfortunate that there > were a > lot of key people missing from some of those discussions though. Personally, > my > hope with making this change would mean that the likelihood of devs being > able > to justify going to the Forum increases. > > Sean > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
-- Regards Fred Li (李永乐) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
