Let's use a different email thread to discuss if Octavia should be part of the Neutron incubator project right away or not. I would like to keep the two discussions separate.
Susanne On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Balukoff <sbaluk...@bluebox.net> wrote: > Hi Susanne-- > > Regarding the Octavia sessions: I think we probably will have enough to > discuss that we could use two design sessions. However, I also think that > we can probably come to conclusions on whether Octavia should become a part > of Neutron Incubator right away via discussion on this mailing list. Do we > want to have that discussion in another thread, or should we use this one? > > Stephen > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Susanne Balle <sleipnir...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> With a corrected Subject. Susanne >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Susanne Balle <sleipnir...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> LBaaS team, >>> >>> As we discussed in the Weekly LBaaS meeting this morning we should make >>> sure we get the design sessions scheduled that we are interested in. >>> >>> We currently agreed on the following: >>> >>> * Neutron LBaaS. we want to schedule 2 sessions. I am assuming that we >>> want to go over status and also the whole incubator thingy and how we will >>> best move forward. >>> >>> * Octavia: We want to schedule 2 sessions. >>> --- During one of the sessions I would like to discuss the pros and >>> cons of putting Octavia into the Neutron LBaaS incubator project right >>> away. If it is going to be the reference implementation for LBaaS v 2 then >>> I believe Octavia belong in Neutron LBaaS v2 incubator. >>> >>> * Flavors which should be coordinated with markmcclain and enikanorov. >>> --- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102723/ >>> >>> Is this too many sessions given the constraints? I am assuming that we >>> can also meet at the pods like we did at the last summit. >>> >>> thoughts? >>> >>> Regards Susanne >>> >>> Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> >>> Aug 27 (1 day ago) >>> to OpenStack >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I've been thinking about what changes we can bring to the Design Summit >>> format to make it more productive. I've heard the feedback from the >>> mid-cycle meetups and would like to apply some of those ideas for Paris, >>> within the constraints we have (already booked space and time). Here is >>> something we could do: >>> >>> Day 1. Cross-project sessions / incubated projects / other projects >>> >>> I think that worked well last time. 3 parallel rooms where we can >>> address top cross-project questions, discuss the results of the various >>> experiments we conducted during juno. Don't hesitate to schedule 2 slots >>> for discussions, so that we have time to come to the bottom of those >>> issues. Incubated projects (and maybe "other" projects, if space allows) >>> occupy the remaining space on day 1, and could occupy "pods" on the >>> other days. >>> >>> Day 2 and Day 3. Scheduled sessions for various programs >>> >>> That's our traditional scheduled space. We'll have a 33% less slots >>> available. So, rather than trying to cover all the scope, the idea would >>> be to focus those sessions on specific issues which really require >>> face-to-face discussion (which can't be solved on the ML or using spec >>> discussion) *or* require a lot of user feedback. That way, appearing in >>> the general schedule is very helpful. This will require us to be a lot >>> stricter on what we accept there and what we don't -- we won't have >>> space for courtesy sessions anymore, and traditional/unnecessary >>> sessions (like my traditional "release schedule" one) should just move >>> to the mailing-list. >>> >>> Day 4. Contributors meetups >>> >>> On the last day, we could try to split the space so that we can conduct >>> parallel midcycle-meetup-like contributors gatherings, with no time >>> boundaries and an open agenda. Large projects could get a full day, >>> smaller projects would get half a day (but could continue the discussion >>> in a local bar). Ideally that meetup would end with some alignment on >>> release goals, but the idea is to make the best of that time together to >>> solve the issues you have. Friday would finish with the design summit >>> feedback session, for those who are still around. >>> >>> >>> I think this proposal makes the best use of our setup: discuss clear >>> cross-project issues, address key specific topics which need >>> face-to-face time and broader attendance, then try to replicate the >>> success of midcycle meetup-like open unscheduled time to discuss >>> whatever is hot at this point. >>> >>> There are still details to work out (is it possible split the space, >>> should we use the usual design summit CFP website to organize the >>> "scheduled" time...), but I would first like to have your feedback on >>> this format. Also if you have alternative proposals that would make a >>> better use of our 4 days, let me know. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > > -- > Stephen Balukoff > Blue Box Group, LLC > (800)613-4305 x807 > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev