On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:55:52AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 16:03 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 02/22/2016 10:14 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona. > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > Comments, thoughts ? > > > > > > Thierry (and Jay, who wrote a similar note much earlier in > > > February, and Lauren, who added more clarity over on the marketing > > > list, and the many, many of you who have spoken up in this thread > > > ...), > > > > > > as a community guy, I have grave concerns about what the long-term > > > effect of this move would be. I agree with your reasons, and the > > > problems, but I worry that this is not the way to solve it. > > > > > > Summit is one time when we have an opportunity to hold community up > > > to the folks that think only product - to show them how critical it > > > is that the people that are on this mailing list are doing the > > > awesome things that they're doing, in the upstream, in cooperation > > > and collaboration with their competitors. > > > > > > I worry that splitting the two events would remove the community > > > aspect from the conference. The conference would become more > > > corporate, more product, and less project. > > > > > > My initial response was "crap, now I have to go to four events > > > instead of two", but as I thought about it, it became clear that > > > that wouldn't happen. I, and everyone else, would end up picking > > > one event or the other, and the division between product and > > > project would deepen. > > > > > > Summit, for me specifically, has frequently been at least as much > > > about showing the community to the sales/marketing folks in my own > > > company, as showing our wares to the customer. > > > > I think what you describe is a prime reason for why separating the > > events would be *beneficial* for the community contributors. The > > conference has long ago become so corporate focused that its session > > offers little to no value to me as a project contributor. What you > > describe as a benefit of being able to put community people infront > > of business people is in fact a significant negative for the design > > summit productivity. It causes key community contributors to be > > pulled out of important design sessions to go talk to business > > people, making the design sessions significantly less productive. > > It's Naïve to think that something is so sacrosanct that it will be > protected come what may. Everything eventually has to justify itself > to the funders. Providing quid pro quo to sales and marketing helps > enormously with that justification and it can be managed so it's not a > huge drain on productive time. OpenStack may be the new shiny now, but > one day it won't be and then you'll need the support of the people > you're currently disdaining. > > I've said this before in the abstract, but let me try to make it > specific and personal: once the kernel was the new shiny and money was > poured all over us; we were pure and banned management types from the > kernel summit and other events, but that all changed when the dot com > bust came. You're from Red Hat, if you ask the old timers about the > Ottawa Linux Symposium and allied Kernel Summit I believe they'll > recall that in 2005(or 6) the Red Hat answer to a plea to fund travel > was here's $25 a head, go and find a floor to crash on. As the > wrangler for the new Linux Plumbers Conference I had to come up with > all sorts of convoluted schemes for getting Red Hat to fund developer > travel most of which involved embarrassing Brian Stevens into approving > it over the objections of his managers. I don't want to go into detail > about how Red Hat reached this situation; I just want to remind you > that it happened before and it could happen again.
The proposal to split the design summit off actually aims to reduce the travel cost burden. Currently we have a conference+design summit at the wrong time, which is fairly unproductive due to people being pulled out of the design summit for other tasks. So we "fixed" that by introducing mid-cycles to get real design work done. IOW contributors end up with 4 events to travel to each year. With the proposed split of the conference from te design summit, we have a chance of having a productive design summit that can ultimately eliminate the need for the mid-cycles, so we have a good chance of getting back to 2 events to travel to each year for the majority of contributors, with the obviously reduction in costs. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev