On Aug 20, 2014 10:56 AM, "John Garbutt" wrote:
>
> On 18 August 2014 11:18, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't
much
> >>> to ask given the rate at which
On 18 August 2014 11:18, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much
>>> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would
>>> argue that given the
I think to make the Summit sessions more effective:
1. The presenter to put in more effort beforehand - implement a rough POC,
write up a detailed etherpad, etc. where everything is ready say 2-3 weeks
before the Summit. Maybe even require a reviewed spec for sessions which
introduce new features?
From: Joe Gordon mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: OpenStack List
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, August 18, 2014 at 9:31 PM
To: OpenStack List
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant
> wrote:
> > >> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't
> much
> > >
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 06:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't
> much
> >>> to ask given the rate at
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much
> >> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would
> >> argue t
On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>
Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important
>
On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/14/2014 11:40 AM, David Kranz wrote:
>> On 08/14/2014 10:54 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2014 3:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:18:52AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 06:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much
> >>> to ask given the rat
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 06:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't
> much
> >>> to ask given the rate at
On 08/18/2014 06:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much
>>> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would
>>> argue that given the r
Le 18 août 2014 14:36, "Salvatore Orlando" a écrit :
>
> As the conversation has drifted away from a discussion pertaining the
nova core team, I have some comments inline as well.
>
>
> On 18 August 2014 12:18, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Rus
As the conversation has drifted away from a discussion pertaining the nova
core team, I have some comments inline as well.
On 18 August 2014 12:18, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >> Let me try to say it another way. You se
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much
> >> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would
> >>
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> Let me try to say it another way. You seemed to say that it wasn't much
>> to ask given the rate at which things happen in OpenStack. I would
>> argue that given the rate, we should not try to ask more of individuals
>>
I've literally just finished the Cinder mid-cycle meetup (I'm still in
my hotel room), and the value was huge and undeniable.
Reading through this thread, I've just realised one massive advantage
of the mid-cycle meetup that improved our productivity massively: it
is in the middle of a cycle. We h
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2014-08-14 09:33:20 -0400 (-0400), Russell Bryant wrote:
> [...]
> > Another issue is that some folks are just fundamentally opposed to
> > using Google
> [...]
>
> I think that's a shallow depiction of the issue. I'm sure *some*
> peopl
On 2014-08-14 09:33:20 -0400 (-0400), Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
> Another issue is that some folks are just fundamentally opposed to
> using Google
[...]
I think that's a shallow depiction of the issue. I'm sure *some*
people really do just avoid Google specifically, but a bigger
concern should
Maybe we need to think about this from a distributed software perspective?
* Divide and Conquer?
Can we split the topics to create more manageable sub-groups? This way it's not
core-vs-non-core but intererested-vs-moderately-interested. (of course, this
is much the way the mailing list works)
Hi
> On 14 Aug 2014, at 19:48, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
>
> My experience with mics, no matter how good, In conference rooms is not good.
+1
The ubuntu dev summits went through several iterations of trying to make remote
participation effective, and I don't think we ever achieved it.
I think
Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:48 PM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations of core reviewers
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Michael Still <mailto:mi...@stillh
Le 14 août 2014 21:56, "Joe Gordon" a écrit :
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> > >> I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questi
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
> > >> I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
> > >> doing f2f meetings sooo many times a
.
--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Ph: 303/443-3786
From: Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:48 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectatio
On 08/14/2014 11:40 AM, David Kranz wrote:
> On 08/14/2014 10:54 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2014 3:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> I'm not questioning t
On 08/14/2014 10:54 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 8/14/2014 3:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
doing f2f meeting
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com] wrote:
>
>>An ideal solution would allow attendees to join as individuals from
>>anywhere. A lot of contributors work from home. Is that sort of thing
>>compatible with your system?
>
> In principl
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:30:59AM -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Sandy Walsh
> wrote:
> > On 8/14/2014 11:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2014 10:04 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> >>> Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
> >>>
> Depend
Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com] wrote:
>An ideal solution would allow attendees to join as individuals from
>anywhere. A lot of contributors work from home. Is that sort of thing
>compatible with your system?
In principle, yes, but that loses the immersive telepresence aspect
which i
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> On 8/14/2014 11:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 08/14/2014 10:04 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>>> Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
>>>
Depending on the usage needs, I think Google hangouts is a quite useful
techno
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Sandy Walsh
wrote:
> On 8/14/2014 11:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> > On 08/14/2014 10:04 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> >> Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
> >>
> >>> Depending on the usage needs, I think Google hangouts is a quite useful
> >>>
On 8/14/2014 11:28 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/14/2014 10:04 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
>>
>>> Depending on the usage needs, I think Google hangouts is a quite useful
>>> technology. For many-to-many session its limit of 10 participants c
On 8/14/2014 3:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
doing f2f meetings sooo many times a year. OpenStack is very muc
On 08/14/2014 10:04 AM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
>
>> Depending on the usage needs, I think Google hangouts is a quite useful
>> technology. For many-to-many session its limit of 10 participants can be
>> an issue, but for a few-to-many broadcast
Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
>Depending on the usage needs, I think Google hangouts is a quite useful
>technology. For many-to-many session its limit of 10 participants can be
>an issue, but for a few-to-many broadcast it could be practical. What I
>find particularly appe
On 08/14/2014 09:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 08:31:48AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 11:31 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>
Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important topi
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 08:31:48AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 11:31 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >
> >> Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important topic. I
> >> very much valued the face-to-face interact
On 08/13/2014 07:27 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> The etherpad for the meetup has extensive notes. Any summary I write
> will basically be those notes in prose. What are you looking for in a
> summary that isn't in the etherpad? There also wasn't a summary of the
> Icehouse midcycle produced that I ca
On 08/13/2014 11:31 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important topic. I
>> very much valued the face-to-face interaction that came from the mid-cycle
>> meetup in Beaverton (it was the only o
On 08/13/2014 07:27 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 01:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> Expecting cores to be at these sorts of things seems pretty reasonable
>>> to me, given the usefulness (and gravity) of the discussions we've been
>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:24:36AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
> >> I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
> >> doing f2f meetings sooo many times a year. OpenStack is very much
> >> the outlier here among open source
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>> > Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important
>> > topic. I
>> > very much valued the face-to-face interact
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> > Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important
> topic. I
> > very much valued the face-to-face interaction that came from the
> mid-cycle
> > meetup in Beaverton (
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Just wanted to quickly weigh in with my thoughts on this important topic. I
> very much valued the face-to-face interaction that came from the mid-cycle
> meetup in Beaverton (it was the only one I've ever been to).
>
> That said, I do not belie
On 08/12/2014 06:57 PM, Michael Still wrote:
Hi.
One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.
Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has
On 14 August 2014 05:44, Russell Bryant wrote:
> By all means, if a subset wants to meet up and make progress on some
> things, I think that's fine. I don't think anyone think it's not
> useful. However, discussions need to be summarized and taken back to
> the list for discussion before decisi
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 01:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> Expecting cores to be at these sorts of things seems pretty reasonable
>> to me, given the usefulness (and gravity) of the discussions we've been
>> having so far. Companies with more cores will ha
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
>> doing f2f meetings sooo many times a year. OpenStack is very much
>> the outlier here among open source projects - the vast majority of
>> projects get along very well with mu
On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 02:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 02:33 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> On 8/13/14 11:20 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Russell Bryant
wrote:
> I disagree. IMO, *expecting* people to tr
On 08/13/2014 02:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 02:33 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> On 8/13/14 11:20 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Russell Bryant
>>> wrote:
I disagree. IMO, *expecting* people to travel, potentially across
the globe, 4 times a year is an
On 08/13/2014 02:33 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> On 8/13/14 11:20 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Russell Bryant
>> wrote:
>>> I disagree. IMO, *expecting* people to travel, potentially across
>>> the globe, 4 times a year is an unreasonable expectation, and
>>> quite uncharacteri
On 8/13/14 11:20 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Russell Bryant
> wrote:
>> I disagree. IMO, *expecting* people to travel, potentially across
>> the globe, 4 times a year is an unreasonable expectation, and
>> quite uncharacteristic of open source projects. If we can't figur
On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 01:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> Expecting cores to be at these sorts of things seems pretty reasonable
>> to me, given the usefulness (and gravity) of the discussions we've been
>> having so far. Companies with more cores will have
On 08/13/2014 01:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> Expecting cores to be at these sorts of things seems pretty reasonable
> to me, given the usefulness (and gravity) of the discussions we've been
> having so far. Companies with more cores will have to send more or make
> some hard decisions, but I don't wa
> I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
> doing f2f meetings sooo many times a year. OpenStack is very much
> the outlier here among open source projects - the vast majority of
> projects get along very well with much less f2f time and a far
> smaller % of their contrib
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:18:09AM -0700, Maru Newby wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
> >> make nova's
On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
>> make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
>> attempt at that
Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com] wrote:
>our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
>what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
>instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
>collaboration technology, not me
A big +1 to what daniel said,
If f2f events are becoming so important & the only way to get things
done, IMHO we should really start to do some reflection on how our
community operates and start thinking about what we are doing wrong.
Expecting every company to send developers (core or non-cor
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 05:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
>>> make nova's expectations of core r
On 08/13/2014 05:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
>> make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
>> attempt at that.
>>
>> N
On 08/12/2014 06:57 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> Hi.
>
> One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
> make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
> attempt at that.
Note that we also have:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/CoreTeam
so o
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> Hi.
>
> One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
> make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
> attempt at that.
>
> Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews fro
64 matches
Mail list logo
