Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2 since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree with them here as I have in individual discussions.
If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving this a try. On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle <mvanw...@rackspace.com> wrote: > Hey folks, > Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back > through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's > latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the > Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but > have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I > respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points. > > In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the > software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature > and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate > effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that > focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW the > developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the focus > of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has > allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know > several who have found it valuable. > > The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective > combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were occurring. > The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's purpose > was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in this > case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to > discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they have > been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated. For > the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just > bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold. > > On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +0000: > >> > >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the > >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with > >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends > >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the > >> forum to only a subset of the summit time? > > > > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor > > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but > > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the > > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle > > would be convenient, for sure.) > > > > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems > > key. > > Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that one > is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group > spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue > for > engaging with everyone in our community. > > The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their > focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work > items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are > co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite > other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of > expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our > geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and get > work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to maximize > the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who > can't > relate to any specific work group. > > Exactly. I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but > it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG. We need this > time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum sessions > (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version. While some > folks could drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle is just > that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support across one, > larger event - it should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the sessions > Theirry describes above > > The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific > discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum > sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are > defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event schedule, > and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of > attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It > allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend much > time getting more engaged and contribute back. > > Agreed. Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are so > valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the software > needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned behaviors > might have on Operators and users. To Tim's earlier question, no I think > this change doesn't reduce the need for Forum sessions. If anything, I > think it increases the need for us to get REALLY good at channeling output > from the Ops mid-cycle in to session topics at the next Summit. > > The Ops meetup under its current format is mostly work sessions, and > those would fit pretty well in the PTG event format. Ideally I would > limit the feedback-gathering sessions there and use the Forum (and > regional events like OpenStack days) to collect it. That sounds like a > better way to reach out to "all users" and take into account their > feedback and needs... > > They are largely work sessions, but independent of the co-location > discussion, the UC is focused on improving the ability for tangible output > to come from Ops mid-cycles, OpenStack Days and regional meetups - largely > in the form of Forum sessions and ultimately changes in the software. So > we, as a committee, see a lot of similarities in what you just said. I'm > not bold enough to predict exactly how co-location might change the > tone/topic of the Ops sessions, but I agree that we shouldn't expect a lot > of real-time feedback time with devs at the PTG/mid-summit event (what ever > we end up calling it). We want the devs to be focused on what's already > planned for the N+1 version or beyond. The conversations/sessions at the > Ops portion of the event would hopefully lead to Forum sessions on N+2 > features, functions, bug fixes, etc > > Overall, I still see co-location as a positive move. There will be some > tricky bits we need to figure out between to the "two sides" of the event > as we want to MINIMIZE any perceived us/them between dev and ops - not add > to it. But, the work session themselves, should still honor the spirit of > the PTG and Ops Mid-cycle as they are today. We just get the added benefit > of time together as a whole community - and hopefully solve a few > logistic/finance/sponsorship/venue issues that trouble one event or the > other today. > > Thanks! > VW > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Kind regards, Melvin Hillsman mrhills...@gmail.com mobile: (832) 264-2646
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
