(X-posted to -operators.)
Any thoughts on how the ops track spaces would be requested, since there
is not a real ‘operators project’, PTL, etc.?
I assume this would come from the operators group as a whole, so probably
something we should put on the agenda at the ops meet up in March. (I’ve
added it to the etherpad.)
Mike
On 1/9/15, 2:50 PM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>The OpenStack Foundation staff is considering a number of changes to the
>Design Summit format for Vancouver, changes on which we'd very much like
>to hear your feedback.
>
>The problems we are trying to solve are the following:
>- Accommodate the needs of more "OpenStack projects"
>- Reduce separation and perceived differences between the Ops Summit and
>the Design/Dev Summit
>- Create calm and less-crowded spaces for teams to gather and get more
>work done
>
>While some sessions benefit from large exposure, loads of feedback and
>large rooms, some others are just workgroup-oriented work sessions that
>benefit from smaller rooms, less exposure and more whiteboards. Smaller
>rooms are also cheaper space-wise, so they allow us to scale more easily
>to a higher number of "OpenStack projects".
>
>My proposal is the following. Each project team would have a track at
>the Design Summit. Ops feedback is in my opinion part of the design of
>OpenStack, so the Ops Summit would become a track within the
>forward-looking "Design Summit". Tracks may use two separate types of
>sessions:
>
>* Fishbowl sessions
>Those sessions are for open discussions where a lot of participation and
>feedback is desirable. Those would happen in large rooms (100 to 300
>people, organized in fishbowl style with a projector). Those would have
>catchy titles and appear on the general Design Summit schedule. We would
>have space for 6 or 7 of those in parallel during the first 3 days of
>the Design Summit (we would not run them on Friday, to reproduce the
>successful Friday format we had in Paris).
>
>* Working sessions
>Those sessions are for a smaller group of contributors to get specific
>work done or prioritized. Those would happen in smaller rooms (20 to 40
>people, organized in boardroom style with loads of whiteboards). Those
>would have a blanket title (like "infra team working session") and
>redirect to an etherpad for more precise and current content, which
>should limit out-of-team participation. Those would replace "project
>pods". We would have space for 10 to 12 of those in parallel for the
>first 3 days, and 18 to 20 of those in parallel on the Friday (by
>reusing fishbowl rooms).
>
>Each project track would request some mix of sessions ("We'd like 4
>fishbowl sessions, 8 working sessions on Tue-Thu + half a day on
>Friday") and the TC would arbitrate how to allocate the limited
>resources. Agenda for the fishbowl sessions would need to be published
>in advance, but agenda for the working sessions could be decided
>dynamically from an etherpad agenda.
>
>By making larger use of smaller spaces, we expect that setup to let us
>accommodate the needs of more projects. By merging the two separate Ops
>Summit and Design Summit events, it should make the Ops feedback an
>integral part of the Design process rather than a second-class citizen.
>By creating separate working session rooms, we hope to evolve the "pod"
>concept into something where it's easier for teams to get work done
>(less noise, more whiteboards, clearer agenda).
>
>What do you think ? Could that work ? If not, do you have alternate
>suggestions ?
>
>--
>Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>openstack-...@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
