I'll second David's comments, and second the fact that the Manchester layout seemed to work well. The facility in Manchester provided a couple secondary rooms plus a few much smaller rooms which I think generally worked well. Having a tertiary area for meals/"networking" type engagements should also be considered, that's effectively the 3rd breakout room.
But that still points to a max of < 300 people. Otherwise you need more/larger breakouts. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM, David Medberry <openst...@medberry.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis <matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk > > wrote: > >> >> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin >> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between >> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size. >> > > Two comments, points > > 1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very > poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on the > floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again, > primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have > everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had > for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind > of podium and audience layout. > > 2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably > max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size to > make progress in breakouts. > > So, I'm 300ish max. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
