Good feedback David. I think we'd all agree that the Austin room layout for that session was totally wrong for what we were trying to do :) The overall maximum numbers have a pretty big impact on secondary room sizes, depending on how many tracks you try to have, which is one of the reasons why we're trying to get a bit of consensus here. My personal view is also that two tracks is a good number, along with breakouts for specific working groups, so that people don't end up missing out too much on things where they have a schedule conflict. Funding travel is a big deal for most operators, given we also have two summits a year, so maximising useful time is a good thing.
On 1 June 2016 at 20:29, David Medberry <openst...@medberry.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Matt Jarvis <matt.jar...@datacentred.co.uk > > wrote: > >> >> The general consensus in the discussions we've had, and from the Austin >> summit sessions and the Manchester feedback session, is that between >> 150-200 attendees should be the maximum size. >> > > Two comments, points > > 1) The last day of the Austin summit, ops had their own room. It was very > poorly organized and had about 40ish seats and another 10-20 people on the > floor. Even with just 40ish before it got SROd, it was difficult (again, > primarily because of the layout) to keep to one conversation and have > everyone interested participate. That said, I think the layouts we've had > for the Mid-Cycles I've been to are more amenable to discussion with kind > of podium and audience layout. > > 2) I think with that podium/audience layout 200 is doable 300 is probably > max. We'll still need quite a few 2ary rooms of at least 20 people size to > make progress in breakouts. > > So, I'm 300ish max. > -- DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators