I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG. Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a try.
Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to meet and offline discussion. :) On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very > base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2 > since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree > with them here as I have in individual discussions. > > If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving > this a try. > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle <mvanw...@rackspace.com> > wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back >> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's >> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the >> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but >> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I >> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points. >> >> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the >> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature >> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate >> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that >> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW the >> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the focus >> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has >> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know >> several who have found it valuable. >> >> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective >> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were occurring. >> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's purpose >> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in this >> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to >> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they have >> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated. For >> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just >> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold. >> >> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: >> >> Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +0000: >> >> >> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the >> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with >> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends >> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the >> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time? >> > >> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor >> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but >> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the >> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle >> > would be convenient, for sure.) >> > >> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems >> > key. >> >> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that >> one >> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group >> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue >> for >> engaging with everyone in our community. >> >> The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their >> focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work >> items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are >> co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite >> other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of >> expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our >> geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and >> get >> work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to >> maximize >> the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who >> can't >> relate to any specific work group. >> >> Exactly. I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but >> it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG. We need this >> time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum sessions >> (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version. While some >> folks could drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle is just >> that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support across one, >> larger event - it should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the sessions >> Theirry describes above >> >> The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific >> discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum >> sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are >> defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event >> schedule, >> and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of >> attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It >> allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend >> much >> time getting more engaged and contribute back. >> >> Agreed. Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are >> so valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the >> software needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned >> behaviors might have on Operators and users. To Tim's earlier question, no >> I think this change doesn't reduce the need for Forum sessions. If >> anything, I think it increases the need for us to get REALLY good at >> channeling output from the Ops mid-cycle in to session topics at the next >> Summit. >> >> The Ops meetup under its current format is mostly work sessions, and >> those would fit pretty well in the PTG event format. Ideally I would >> limit the feedback-gathering sessions there and use the Forum (and >> regional events like OpenStack days) to collect it. That sounds like a >> better way to reach out to "all users" and take into account their >> feedback and needs... >> >> They are largely work sessions, but independent of the co-location >> discussion, the UC is focused on improving the ability for tangible output >> to come from Ops mid-cycles, OpenStack Days and regional meetups - largely >> in the form of Forum sessions and ultimately changes in the software. So >> we, as a committee, see a lot of similarities in what you just said. I'm >> not bold enough to predict exactly how co-location might change the >> tone/topic of the Ops sessions, but I agree that we shouldn't expect a lot >> of real-time feedback time with devs at the PTG/mid-summit event (what ever >> we end up calling it). We want the devs to be focused on what's already >> planned for the N+1 version or beyond. The conversations/sessions at the >> Ops portion of the event would hopefully lead to Forum sessions on N+2 >> features, functions, bug fixes, etc >> >> Overall, I still see co-location as a positive move. There will be some >> tricky bits we need to figure out between to the "two sides" of the event >> as we want to MINIMIZE any perceived us/them between dev and ops - not add >> to it. But, the work session themselves, should still honor the spirit of >> the PTG and Ops Mid-cycle as they are today. We just get the added benefit >> of time together as a whole community - and hopefully solve a few >> logistic/finance/sponsorship/venue issues that trouble one event or the >> other today. >> >> Thanks! >> VW >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstac >> k-operators >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > > Melvin Hillsman > mrhills...@gmail.com > mobile: (832) 264-2646 >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators