On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> On 02/22/2016 10:14 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona. >> > >> > .... >> > >> > Comments, thoughts ? >> >> Thierry (and Jay, who wrote a similar note much earlier in February, and >> Lauren, who added more clarity over on the marketing list, and the many, >> many of you who have spoken up in this thread ...), >> >> as a community guy, I have grave concerns about what the long-term >> effect of this move would be. I agree with your reasons, and the >> problems, but I worry that this is not the way to solve it. >> >> Summit is one time when we have an opportunity to hold community up to >> the folks that think only product - to show them how critical it is that >> the people that are on this mailing list are doing the awesome things >> that they're doing, in the upstream, in cooperation and collaboration >> with their competitors. >> >> I worry that splitting the two events would remove the community aspect >> from the conference. The conference would become more corporate, more >> product, and less project. >> >> My initial response was "crap, now I have to go to four events instead >> of two", but as I thought about it, it became clear that that wouldn't >> happen. I, and everyone else, would end up picking one event or the >> other, and the division between product and project would deepen. >> >> Summit, for me specifically, has frequently been at least as much about >> showing the community to the sales/marketing folks in my own company, as >> showing our wares to the customer. > > I think what you describe is a prime reason for why separating the > events would be *beneficial* for the community contributors. The > conference has long ago become so corporate focused that its session > offers little to no value to me as a project contributor. What you > describe as a benefit of being able to put community people infront > of business people is in fact a significant negative for the design > summit productivity. It causes key community contributors to be pulled > out of important design sessions to go talk to business people, making > the design sessions significantly less productive.
I'd like to add to the above that having it all in a single week (business meetings, community meetings, design sesions) can also make the summit more stresful for some folks, which will likely be all burned out at the end of it. > >> Now, I know you guys put on awesome events, and you have probably >> thought about this already. The proposal to have the events be >> back-to-back across a weekend may indeed address some of these concerns, >> at the cost of the "less expensive city and venue" part of the proposal, >> and at the cost of being away from my family over yet another weekend. > > Back to back crossing over a weekend is just a complete non-starter > of an idea due to the increased time away & giving up personal time > at the weekends for work. +1 I believe a back-to-back option was brought up before the Vancouver summit as an idea for the Tokyo one. There was close to no good feedback for it. Cheers, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __________________________________________________________________________ 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
