On 20 April 2012 14:20, Deepak Saxena <dsax...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 19 April 2012 12:58, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfef...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 19 April 2012 14:47, Deepak Saxena <dsax...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfef...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena <dsax...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>>>>>> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away >>>>>>> with team tracks all together and just have topic tracks. This would >>>>>>> align with our topic based approach to things now, and would be a way >>>>>>> to breakdown our silo's. The topic track would be lead by a topic >>>>>>> champion. What do people think? >>>>>> >>>>>> I ask myself whether in practice it makes a difference. In practice, at >>>>>> Connect, you want somebody to own a certain set of sessions. Splitting >>>>>> this by team or by topic seems to have equal drawbacks on either side. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not really sure if it makes a difference at the end of the day. >>>>> Also, are we really talking about topic tracks or sessions here? W/o a >>>>> CFP asking for externally developed presentations, I'm not sure we can >>>>> end up with many talks about the same topics. >>>>> >>>>> We're planning on some training sessions for Linaro noobs and also for >>>>> what I hope will be a large contingent of member engineers from China, >>>>> India, and Korea offices. Should "Training" be a separate track? >>>>> >>>>> Also to clarify, regardless of whether we go down this path or not, we >>>>> will still have time for hacking sessions? >>>> >>>> I think its actually makes the hacking sessions better. Why have team >>>> hacking rooms? We should have topic hacking rooms where each tiger >>>> team meets each other and starts to solve the problems they've talked >>>> about in the topic planning session. >>> >>> I dunno. I think a lot of the work we are doing in the groups does not >>> directly overlap, and when it does (i.e, platform integration level) >>> it's as easy as grabbing the right person. From my experience at prior >>> connects, a lot of the decisions around common infrastructure happened >>> in the hacking rooms where folks could gather around there computers >>> and boards in a shared space. Spreading us across rooms by topic areas >>> would loose that cohesiveness that I think is really key to the work >>> that happens at Connect. >> >> I think some of that is just a reflection of our team track >> organization. Consider a common goal like: >> >> Unify all Kernels >> >> That's a big topic, but if >> >> Andrea >> Mathieu >> Lee >> Andy Green >> Tixy >> Vishal >> LAVA PoC >> Ubuntu PoC >> etc... >> >> Were all on the Unify all Kernels tiger team, they could use connect >> to hammer this out. The hacking rooms could then change mid week for >> other topic hacking sessions. > > OK, that makes sense. Another one would be Android + DT...get your > team and the DT folks from KWG together for half a day to hash out > anything that's needed. In essence these become extended summit > sessions. We need to keep 1-2 rooms open for general hacking in this > case for folks who may want to just go deep dive into an area they are > working on.
Yeah, cool. I'll get this and other topics scheduled. > ~Deepak -- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
