+1 Greetings from Reykjavik
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 2, 2018, at 8:58 PM, <arkady.kanev...@dell.com> > <arkady.kanev...@dell.com> wrote: > > +1 > > From: Erik McCormick [mailto:emccorm...@cirrusseven.com] > Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 3:57 PM > To: Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> > Cc: openstack-operators <openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User > Feedback > > I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate on > us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format. It's basically > what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so. > > Cheers > Erik > > PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation, kids, etc. > > On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman" <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy. > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur <ji...@openstack.org> wrote: > Hi all - > > I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation of > the Ops Meetup. Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to alert > our events team. > > Thanks! > Jimmy > > > Chris Morgan > March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM > Hello Everyone, > This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There was > an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the foundation > folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put forward as a sample > definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it looks like we could > have a really great combined event in September. > > I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the > meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to > declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT > please speak up by end of week, this week. > > Thanks! > > Chris > > > > > -- > Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com> > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > Jonathan Proulx > March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote: > :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. > :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a > :try. > : > :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to > :meet and offline discussion. :) > > Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs- > PTG/OpsMidcycle > > PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get > work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of > colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing > this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might > not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch, > or over beers as Yih Leong suggests. > > Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more > conceptual "what" discussions. > > So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits > to colocation. > > We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation > seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally > harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to > this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the > events as cheap and simple as possible. > > -Jon > > : > :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote: > : > :> 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/openstac > :>> k-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 > > > Yih Leong, Sun. > March 22, 2018 at 11:02 PM > I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. Although > scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a try. > > Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to > meet and offline discussion. :) > > On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote: > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > Melvin Hillsman > March 22, 2018 at 9:08 PM > 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. > > > > > -- > 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 > Matt Van Winkle > March 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
