I had expected more cinder/nova sessions the first days, so I like that
proposal.
If we are able to minimize project overlap or have alternatives the last 3
days I think we are moving towards a better solution.
Jay
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Emilien Macchi wrote:
>
Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> After giving it some thought, my current thinking is that we should
>> still split the week in two, but should move away from an arbitrary
>> horizontal/vertical split. My strawman proposal would be to split the
>> w
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For the PTG events we have a number of rooms available for 5 days, of
> which we need to make the best usage. We also want to keep it simple and
> productive, so we want to minimize room changes (allocating the same
> room t
On 18 May 2017, at 2:27, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For the PTG events we have a number of rooms available for 5 days, of
> which we need to make the best usage. We also want to keep it simple and
> productive, so we want to minimize room changes (allocating the same
> room to the
Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> [...]
>> After giving it some thought, my current thinking is that we should
>> still split the week in two, but should move away from an arbitrary
>> horizontal/vertical split. My strawman proposal would be to split the
>> week between inter-project work (+ teams that rely
Hi Thierry, thanks for raising it. I think it's very important to discuss
indeed.
On 05/18/2017 11:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
For the PTG events we have a number of rooms available for 5 days, of
which we need to make the best usage. We also want to keep it simple and
productive
