BoD, unless they feel the need to delegate, at which point then maybe an Operators committee. But I'd hate to see more committees created.
- jlk On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Matt Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you proposing an Operators committee or do you mean the OpenStack BoD? > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jesse Keating <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Honestly I'm fine with the elected board helping to make this decision. >> Folks that want to underwrite the event can submit a proposal to host, >> board picks from the submissions? Having a wide vote on it seems overkill >> to me. >> >> Open call for submissions, board votes. Is that unreasonable? >> >> >> - jlk >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tom Fifield <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> OK, so I'm just going to throw this one out there to re-stoke the >>> discussion ... >>> >>> Venue selection process. >>> >>> At the moment, there's a few of us who work hard in the shadows to make >>> the best choice we can from a range of generous offers :) >>> >>> In our brave new world, I think this should be a bit more open, what do >>> you think? >>> >>> What kind of structure do we need to make the best decision? >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> On 01/07/15 15:29, Tom Fifield wrote: >>> > Team, >>> > >>> > It's great to see so much passion! :) >>> > >>> > Here's an attempt at a summary email. I'll wait until a later email to >>> > wade into the discussion myself ;) Feel free to jump in on any point. >>> > >>> > =Things we tend to agree on= >>> > "Spirit of the event" >>> > * The response most people had in common was that they didn't want to >>> > see vendor booths :) Several others noted the importance that the event >>> > should remain accessible and ensure there were no barriers to >>> > attendance, space for networking with others and sharing information >>> > about deployments without fear of vendor harassment. >>> > >>> > Multiple Sponsors >>> > * are OK, but they are more like underwriters who should be OK with >>> only >>> > modest acknowledgement (see previous: no booths). Preference for >>> > operator sponsors. Several ways to recognise them possible. >>> > >>> > Current Schedule Format >>> > * It appeared like the current format is working well in general, but >>> > could do with minor tweaks. >>> > >>> > >>> > =Things still under discussion= >>> > Sell Tickets >>> > * Many people agreed that some moderate form of ticketing could be OK, >>> > but the question remains to what extent this should be priced ("low >>> > fee"? $100-200? "cover costs"?). A strong counterpoint was that paid >>> > ticketing makes it less accessible (see "spirit"), prevents some local >>> > attendance, and is unfair to smaller operators, though others noted >>> that >>> > it may be the only practical way to raise funds in the future. >>> > >>> > Break into Regional Events >>> > * A number of viewpoints, ranging from "multiple regional events" to >>> > "one event only [maybe with a travel fund]" to "one event that moves >>> > around [maybe even outside USA]" to "make it in the centre of USA for >>> > easier travel on average". >>> > >>> > >>> > Capping Numbers (inc. Limit Attendees per Company) >>> > * A lot of disagreement here. Many argued that any kind of cap or >>> > barrier to entry detracts from the accessibility of the event. Others >>> > put forth that too few restrictions could dilute the ops-heavy attendee >>> > base, and implied that large companies might send too many people. >>> > >>> > >>> > Multiple Tracks >>> > * To help deal with room size, we could split into multiple tracks. The >>> > ideal number of tracks is not clear at this stage. >>> > >>> > Evening Event >>> > * Several people said they found the PHL evening event uncomfortably >>> > packed, and suggested cancelling it on this basis, or on the basis of >>> > cost. Suggested alternate was posting a list of nearby venues. >>> > >>> > Lightening Talks >>> > * Have lightening talks, perhaps by renaming "show and tell". More of >>> > them? Arranged differently? Unclear. >>> > >>> > =Ideas= >>> > * Video Recording - Might be worth a shot, starting small. >>> > * Travel Fund, Scholarship Fund, Slush Fund >>> > * Use Universities during the summer break for venues >>> > >>> > =Open Questions= >>> > * How will the number of attendees grow? >>> > * What are the costs involved in hosting one of these events? >>> > * Stuff about the summit - probably need a different thread for this >>> > >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > Tom >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 30/06/15 12:33, Tom Fifield wrote: >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> Right now, behind-the-scenes, we're working on getting a venue for >>> next >>> >> ops mid-cycle. It's taking a little longer than normal, but rest >>> assured >>> >> it is happening. >>> >> >>> >> Why is it so difficult? As you may have noticed, we're reaching the >>> size >>> >> of event where both physically and financially, only the largest >>> >> organisations can host us. >>> >> >>> >> We thought we might get away with organising this one old-school with >>> a >>> >> single host and sponsor. Then, for the next, start a brainstorming >>> >> discussion with you about how we scale these events into the future - >>> >> since once we get up and beyond a few hundred people, we're looking at >>> >> having to hire a venue as well as make some changes to the format of >>> the >>> >> event. >>> >> >>> >> However, it seems that even this might be too late. We already had a >>> >> company that proposed to host the meetup at a west coast US hotel >>> >> instead of their place, and wanted to scope out other companies to >>> >> sponsor food. >>> >> >>> >> This would be a change in the model, so let's commence the discussion >>> of >>> >> how we want to scale this event :) >>> >> >>> >> So far I've heard things like: >>> >> * "my $CORPORATE_BENEFACTOR would be fine to share sponsorship with >>> others" >>> >> * "I really don't want to get to the point where we want booths at the >>> >> ops meetup" >>> >> >>> >> Which are promising! It seems like we have a shared understanding of >>> >> what to take this forward with. >>> >> >>> >> So, as the ops meetup grows - what would it look like for you? >>> >> >>> >> How do you think we can manage the venue selection and financial side >>> of >>> >> things? What about the session layout and the scheduling with the >>> >> growing numbers of attendees? >>> >> >>> >> Current data can be found at >>> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection . >>> >> >>> >> I would also be interested in your thoughts about how these events >>> have >>> >> only been in a limited geographical area so far, and how we can >>> address >>> >> that issue. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Tom >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > OpenStack-operators mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-operators mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
