Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Kendall Nelson]

Hello Everyone :)



So I just want to summarize the successes and improvement points people
have brought so that we can make the next round of onboarding an even
bigger success!



What worked:

   -

   Having material prepared ahead of time that is more interactive to get
   people involved
   -

   Having more than one representative of the project there to help out
   -

   Projectors were an asset
   -

   Mascot stickers!



Things to Improve:

   -

   Minimize conflicts between other Summit talks and the onboarding session
   going on
   -

   Recording the sessions
   -

   Bigger rooms?
   -

   Make sure attendees and project reps are aware of what it covered in the
   upstream training
   -

   Could advertise more
   -

   Don’t overlap or go up until happy hour if possible ;)
   -

   Have different options of durations for projects to sign up for



Feel free to correct or add to this list :)


-Kendall (diablo_rojo)

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:36 AM Thierry Carrez  wrote:

> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2017-05-19 09:22:07 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> >> the project,
> >
> > I hosted the onboarding session for the Infrastructure team. For
> > various logistical reasons discussed on the planning thread before
> > the PTG, it was a shared session with many other "horizontal" teams
> > (QA, Requirements, Stable, Release). We carved the 90-minute block
> > up into individual subsessions for each team, though due to
> > scheduling conflicts I was only able to attend the second half
> > (Release and Infra). Attendance was also difficult to gauge; we had
> > several other regulars from the Infra team present in the audience,
> > people associated with other teams with which we shared the room,
> > and an assortment of new faces but hard to tell which session(s)
> > they were mainly there to see.
>
> Doug and I ran the "Release management" segment of that shared slot.
>
> >> what you did in the room,
> >
> > I prepared a quick (5-10 minute) "help wanted" intro slide deck to
> > set the stage, then transitioned to a less formal mix of Q and
> > open discussion of some of the exciting things we're working on
> > currently. I felt like we didn't really get as many solid questions
> > as I was hoping, but the back-and-forth with other team members in
> > the room about our priority efforts was definitely a good way to
> > fill in the gaps between.
>
> We had a quick slidedeck to introduce what the release team actually
> does (not that much), what are the necessary skills (not really ninjas)
> and a base intro on our process. The idea was to inspire others to join
> the team by making it more approachable, and stating that new faces were
> definitely needed.
>
> >> what you think worked,
> >
> > The format wasn't bad. Given the constraints we were under for this,
> > sharing seems to have worked out pretty well for us and possibly
> > seeded the audience with people who were interested in what those
> > other teams had to say and stuck around to see me ramble.
>
> I liked the room setup (classroom style) which is conducive to learning.
>
> >> what you would have done differently
> > [...]
> >
> > The goal I had was to drum up some additional solid contributors to
> > our team, though the upshot (not necessarily negative, just not what
> > I expected) was that we seemed to get more interest from "adjacent
> > technologies" representatives interested in what we were doing and
> > how to replicate it in their ecosystems. If that ends up being a
> > significant portion of the audience going forward, it's possible we
> > could make some adjustments to our approach in an attempt to entice
> > them to collaborate further on co-development of our tools and
> > processes.
>
> Attracting the right set of people in the room is definitely a
> challenge. I don't know if regrouping several teams into the same slot
> was a good idea in that respect. Maybe have shorter slots for smaller
> teams, but still give them their own slot in the schedule ?
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Thierry Carrez]

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 09:22:07 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
>> the project,
> 
> I hosted the onboarding session for the Infrastructure team. For
> various logistical reasons discussed on the planning thread before
> the PTG, it was a shared session with many other "horizontal" teams
> (QA, Requirements, Stable, Release). We carved the 90-minute block
> up into individual subsessions for each team, though due to
> scheduling conflicts I was only able to attend the second half
> (Release and Infra). Attendance was also difficult to gauge; we had
> several other regulars from the Infra team present in the audience,
> people associated with other teams with which we shared the room,
> and an assortment of new faces but hard to tell which session(s)
> they were mainly there to see.

Doug and I ran the "Release management" segment of that shared slot.

>> what you did in the room,
> 
> I prepared a quick (5-10 minute) "help wanted" intro slide deck to
> set the stage, then transitioned to a less formal mix of Q and
> open discussion of some of the exciting things we're working on
> currently. I felt like we didn't really get as many solid questions
> as I was hoping, but the back-and-forth with other team members in
> the room about our priority efforts was definitely a good way to
> fill in the gaps between.

We had a quick slidedeck to introduce what the release team actually
does (not that much), what are the necessary skills (not really ninjas)
and a base intro on our process. The idea was to inspire others to join
the team by making it more approachable, and stating that new faces were
definitely needed.

>> what you think worked,
> 
> The format wasn't bad. Given the constraints we were under for this,
> sharing seems to have worked out pretty well for us and possibly
> seeded the audience with people who were interested in what those
> other teams had to say and stuck around to see me ramble.

I liked the room setup (classroom style) which is conducive to learning.

>> what you would have done differently
> [...]
> 
> The goal I had was to drum up some additional solid contributors to
> our team, though the upshot (not necessarily negative, just not what
> I expected) was that we seemed to get more interest from "adjacent
> technologies" representatives interested in what we were doing and
> how to replicate it in their ecosystems. If that ends up being a
> significant portion of the audience going forward, it's possible we
> could make some adjustments to our approach in an attempt to entice
> them to collaborate further on co-development of our tools and
> processes.

Attracting the right set of people in the room is definitely a
challenge. I don't know if regrouping several teams into the same slot
was a good idea in that respect. Maybe have shorter slots for smaller
teams, but still give them their own slot in the schedule ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-05-19 09:22:07 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> the project,

I hosted the onboarding session for the Infrastructure team. For
various logistical reasons discussed on the planning thread before
the PTG, it was a shared session with many other "horizontal" teams
(QA, Requirements, Stable, Release). We carved the 90-minute block
up into individual subsessions for each team, though due to
scheduling conflicts I was only able to attend the second half
(Release and Infra). Attendance was also difficult to gauge; we had
several other regulars from the Infra team present in the audience,
people associated with other teams with which we shared the room,
and an assortment of new faces but hard to tell which session(s)
they were mainly there to see.

> what you did in the room,

I prepared a quick (5-10 minute) "help wanted" intro slide deck to
set the stage, then transitioned to a less formal mix of Q and
open discussion of some of the exciting things we're working on
currently. I felt like we didn't really get as many solid questions
as I was hoping, but the back-and-forth with other team members in
the room about our priority efforts was definitely a good way to
fill in the gaps between.

> what you think worked,

The format wasn't bad. Given the constraints we were under for this,
sharing seems to have worked out pretty well for us and possibly
seeded the audience with people who were interested in what those
other teams had to say and stuck around to see me ramble.

> what you would have done differently
[...]

The goal I had was to drum up some additional solid contributors to
our team, though the upshot (not necessarily negative, just not what
I expected) was that we seemed to get more interest from "adjacent
technologies" representatives interested in what we were doing and
how to replicate it in their ecosystems. If that ends up being a
significant portion of the audience going forward, it's possible we
could make some adjustments to our approach in an attempt to entice
them to collaborate further on co-development of our tools and
processes.

Also, due to the usual no-schedule-is-perfect conundrums, I ended up
running this in the final minutes before the happy hour social (or
maybe even overlapping the start of it) so that _may_ have sucked up
some of our potential audience before I got to the room. Not sure
what to really do to fix that, more just an observation I suppose.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Nikhil Komawar]

Kendall, Thanks for that pointer and to those who sent emails. I guess the
pre-summit time was a bit weird this time around (for many cores/liaisons)
and may be the next round we will see someone from Glance participate.

Unfortunately, I can't be a Glance liaison at the moment. I hope someone
will be more willing to step up.

Thanks again for making this effort easier for the entire community.

Cheers

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Kendall Nelson 
wrote:

> @Nikhil, we (the organizers of Upstream Institute) sent a few emails
> [1][2] out to the dev mailing list asking for help and representatives from
> various projects to attend and get involved. We are also working on
> building a network of project liaisons to direct newcomers to in each
> project. Would you be interested in being our Glance liaison?
>
> Let me know if you have any other Upstream Institute questions!
>
> - Kendall(diablo_rojo)
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-
> January/110788.html
> [2]  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
> November/108084.html
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:03 PM Nikhil Komawar 
> wrote:
>
>> Project:  Glance
>>
>> Attendees: ~15
>>
>> What was done:
>>
>> We started by introducing the core team (or whatever existed then), did a
>> run down of Glance API documentation especially for developers, other
>> references like notes for ops, best practices. We went through the
>> architecture of the project. A few were interested in knowing more details
>> and going in depth so we discussed the design patterns that exist today,
>> scope of improvements and any blackholes therein, auxiliary services and
>> performance tradeoffs etc. A lot of the discussion was free form so people
>> asked questions and session was interactive.
>>
>>
>> What worked:
>>
>> 1. The projector worked!
>>
>> 2. Session was free form, there was good turnout and it was interactive.
>> (all the good things)
>>
>> 3. People were serious about contributing as per their
>> availability/capacity to do upstream and one person showed up asking to do
>> reviews.
>>
>>
>> Lessons:
>>
>> 1. Could have been advertised more at least the session description more
>> customized.
>>
>> 2. A representative from the team could have been officially invited to
>> the upstream institute training.
>>
>> 3. The community building sessions and on-boarding sessions seem to
>> overlap a bit so a representative from the team could be help in those
>> sessions for Q or more interaction. Probably more collaboration/prep
>> before the summit for such things. ($0.02)
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jay S Bryant 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Project:  Cinder
>>>
>>> Attendees: Approximately 30
>>>
>>> I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder
>>> session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the
>>> presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project.  I
>>> think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something
>>> that we can continue.
>>>
>>> Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce
>>> everyone.  I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL and had
>>> the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the attendees
>>> could put faces with our names.
>>>
>>> From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the
>>> following high level topics:
>>>
>>>- Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
>>>- Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
>>>- Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a
>>>bit of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
>>>- Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how what
>>>was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
>>>- Walked through the main Cinder code tree
>>>- Described how to test changes to Cinder
>>>
>>> My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through
>>> Upstream Institute.  I had coverage in the slides in case they had not been
>>> through the education.  Unfortunately most of the class had not been
>>> through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating those
>>> concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going through real
>>> world examples of working with changes in Cinder.  I got feedback from a
>>> few people that having some real hands on coding examples would have been
>>> helpful.
>>>
>>> One way we could possible handle this is to split the on-boarding to a
>>> introduction section and then a more advanced second session.  The other
>>> option is that we require people who are attending the on-boarding to have
>>> been through Upstream Institute.  Something to think about.
>>>
>>> I think it was unfortunate that the session wasn't recorded.  We shared
>>> a lot of good information (between good questions and having a 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Kendall Nelson]

Thanks Amrith! I added you to our wiki[1] feel free to make changes if any
of the info is incorrect.

-Kendall(diablo_rojo)

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_Upstream_Institute

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:41 AM Amrith Kumar  wrote:

> Kendall,
>
> I would like to be the Trove liaison, and would like to participate in
> Upstream University next time around.
>
> With that said, the answers to Sean's original question.
>
> I ran the room for the Trove team, I think it was a welcome addition.
>
> What went well: I think it was a good opportunity for the project to get
> new contributors (update: if you are interested in contributing to an
> openstack project, trove is looking for new participants).
>
> It would have been nice to have them video taped.
>
> -amrith
>
>
> -amrith
>
> --
> Amrith Kumar
> Phone: +1-978-563-9590 <(978)%20563-9590>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Kendall Nelson 
> wrote:
>
>> @Nikhil, we (the organizers of Upstream Institute) sent a few emails
>> [1][2] out to the dev mailing list asking for help and representatives from
>> various projects to attend and get involved. We are also working on
>> building a network of project liaisons to direct newcomers to in each
>> project. Would you be interested in being our Glance liaison?
>>
>> Let me know if you have any other Upstream Institute questions!
>>
>> - Kendall(diablo_rojo)
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-January/110788.html
>> [2]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-November/108084.html
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:03 PM Nikhil Komawar 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Project:  Glance
>>>
>>> Attendees: ~15
>>>
>>> What was done:
>>>
>>> We started by introducing the core team (or whatever existed then), did
>>> a run down of Glance API documentation especially for developers, other
>>> references like notes for ops, best practices. We went through the
>>> architecture of the project. A few were interested in knowing more details
>>> and going in depth so we discussed the design patterns that exist today,
>>> scope of improvements and any blackholes therein, auxiliary services and
>>> performance tradeoffs etc. A lot of the discussion was free form so people
>>> asked questions and session was interactive.
>>>
>>>
>>> What worked:
>>>
>>> 1. The projector worked!
>>>
>>> 2. Session was free form, there was good turnout and it was interactive.
>>> (all the good things)
>>>
>>> 3. People were serious about contributing as per their
>>> availability/capacity to do upstream and one person showed up asking to do
>>> reviews.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lessons:
>>>
>>> 1. Could have been advertised more at least the session description more
>>> customized.
>>>
>>> 2. A representative from the team could have been officially invited to
>>> the upstream institute training.
>>>
>>> 3. The community building sessions and on-boarding sessions seem to
>>> overlap a bit so a representative from the team could be help in those
>>> sessions for Q or more interaction. Probably more collaboration/prep
>>> before the summit for such things. ($0.02)
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jay S Bryant 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Project:  Cinder

 Attendees: Approximately 30

 I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder
 session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the
 presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project.  I
 think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something
 that we can continue.

 Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and
 introduce everyone.  I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL
 and had the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the
 attendees could put faces with our names.

 From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the
 following high level topics:

- Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
- Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
- Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a
bit of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
- Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how
what was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
- Walked through the main Cinder code tree
- Described how to test changes to Cinder

 My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through
 Upstream Institute.  I had coverage in the slides in case they had not been
 through the education.  Unfortunately most of the class had not been
 through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating those
 concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going through real
 world examples of working 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Amrith Kumar]

Kendall,

I would like to be the Trove liaison, and would like to participate in
Upstream University next time around.

With that said, the answers to Sean's original question.

I ran the room for the Trove team, I think it was a welcome addition.

What went well: I think it was a good opportunity for the project to get
new contributors (update: if you are interested in contributing to an
openstack project, trove is looking for new participants).

It would have been nice to have them video taped.

-amrith


-amrith

--
Amrith Kumar
Phone: +1-978-563-9590


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Kendall Nelson 
wrote:

> @Nikhil, we (the organizers of Upstream Institute) sent a few emails
> [1][2] out to the dev mailing list asking for help and representatives from
> various projects to attend and get involved. We are also working on
> building a network of project liaisons to direct newcomers to in each
> project. Would you be interested in being our Glance liaison?
>
> Let me know if you have any other Upstream Institute questions!
>
> - Kendall(diablo_rojo)
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-
> January/110788.html
> [2]  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
> November/108084.html
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:03 PM Nikhil Komawar 
> wrote:
>
>> Project:  Glance
>>
>> Attendees: ~15
>>
>> What was done:
>>
>> We started by introducing the core team (or whatever existed then), did a
>> run down of Glance API documentation especially for developers, other
>> references like notes for ops, best practices. We went through the
>> architecture of the project. A few were interested in knowing more details
>> and going in depth so we discussed the design patterns that exist today,
>> scope of improvements and any blackholes therein, auxiliary services and
>> performance tradeoffs etc. A lot of the discussion was free form so people
>> asked questions and session was interactive.
>>
>>
>> What worked:
>>
>> 1. The projector worked!
>>
>> 2. Session was free form, there was good turnout and it was interactive.
>> (all the good things)
>>
>> 3. People were serious about contributing as per their
>> availability/capacity to do upstream and one person showed up asking to do
>> reviews.
>>
>>
>> Lessons:
>>
>> 1. Could have been advertised more at least the session description more
>> customized.
>>
>> 2. A representative from the team could have been officially invited to
>> the upstream institute training.
>>
>> 3. The community building sessions and on-boarding sessions seem to
>> overlap a bit so a representative from the team could be help in those
>> sessions for Q or more interaction. Probably more collaboration/prep
>> before the summit for such things. ($0.02)
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jay S Bryant 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Project:  Cinder
>>>
>>> Attendees: Approximately 30
>>>
>>> I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder
>>> session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the
>>> presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project.  I
>>> think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something
>>> that we can continue.
>>>
>>> Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce
>>> everyone.  I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL and had
>>> the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the attendees
>>> could put faces with our names.
>>>
>>> From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the
>>> following high level topics:
>>>
>>>- Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
>>>- Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
>>>- Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a
>>>bit of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
>>>- Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how what
>>>was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
>>>- Walked through the main Cinder code tree
>>>- Described how to test changes to Cinder
>>>
>>> My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through
>>> Upstream Institute.  I had coverage in the slides in case they had not been
>>> through the education.  Unfortunately most of the class had not been
>>> through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating those
>>> concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going through real
>>> world examples of working with changes in Cinder.  I got feedback from a
>>> few people that having some real hands on coding examples would have been
>>> helpful.
>>>
>>> One way we could possible handle this is to split the on-boarding to a
>>> introduction section and then a more advanced second session.  The other
>>> option is that we require people who are attending the on-boarding to have
>>> been through Upstream Institute.  Something to 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Rico Lin]

*Project: * Heat

*Attendees:*  around 10-15

*PPT:* https://www.slideshare.net/GuanYuLin1/heat-project-onboarding

*Videos: *
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIKe-Yb1IV6ETK3HKc7mz8kEtawxlvxJh

*Talker:* Rico Lin and Zane Bitter

*Who we targeting:*

We try to make this usable for new user/ops/dev.

*What was done:*

We use slides through the entire session, with some Q and Experiences
talks. The following is our schedule:


   1. Start with recognizing who is helping to contribute to heat project,
and tell all that we desire any kind of help.
   2. Talk about what repo we got and what it does
   3. Talk about Heat Architecture
   4. Talk new structure of heat (convergence) in concept
   5. Share detail from Heat template to actually resource create
   6. Talk how to update that created resource
   7. Talk how to make your own resource type
   8. Talk about software deploy in workflow
   9. Auto healing+ Autoscaling
   10. Some debug guide (more like for user and ops)
   11. And finally, some roadmap, to hope got some interested to any of
   those items.

Also, we use my smartphone to record that video.
So these are pretty much what we were done.


*What worked:*


   1. People showing their interest in help our team (and some of them
   already start to doing amazing jobs, like LanceHaig:) ), so that worked:)
   2. Hardware works
   3. Room works
   4. Mascot sticker works
   5. Zane works
   6. The space of my smartphone almost works (99%)

*Lessons:*

1. Do hope we can have some video record for Onboarding, to train any
others who might be interested in joining. So the next Onboarding can start
from somewhere more detail, and not start from 0 and end with 101.

2. Don't use weird example like OS::Sled::Dog, that never works when you
try to explain how the actual thing works

3. I found a lot of operators and users not even knows about Onboarding,
maybe we can do something to attract some attention. Like give out what
exactually you will befinfit from it and how your works can be so relative
to upstream that you can even move you amazing job to upstream. And what
you will expected to learn from this session


2017-05-25 6:20 GMT+08:00 Kendall Nelson :

> @Nikhil, we (the organizers of Upstream Institute) sent a few emails
> [1][2] out to the dev mailing list asking for help and representatives from
> various projects to attend and get involved. We are also working on
> building a network of project liaisons to direct newcomers to in each
> project. Would you be interested in being our Glance liaison?
>
> Let me know if you have any other Upstream Institute questions!
>
> - Kendall(diablo_rojo)
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-
> January/110788.html
> [2]  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
> November/108084.html
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:03 PM Nikhil Komawar 
> wrote:
>
>> Project:  Glance
>>
>> Attendees: ~15
>>
>> What was done:
>>
>> We started by introducing the core team (or whatever existed then), did a
>> run down of Glance API documentation especially for developers, other
>> references like notes for ops, best practices. We went through the
>> architecture of the project. A few were interested in knowing more details
>> and going in depth so we discussed the design patterns that exist today,
>> scope of improvements and any blackholes therein, auxiliary services and
>> performance tradeoffs etc. A lot of the discussion was free form so people
>> asked questions and session was interactive.
>>
>>
>> What worked:
>>
>> 1. The projector worked!
>>
>> 2. Session was free form, there was good turnout and it was interactive.
>> (all the good things)
>>
>> 3. People were serious about contributing as per their
>> availability/capacity to do upstream and one person showed up asking to do
>> reviews.
>>
>>
>> Lessons:
>>
>> 1. Could have been advertised more at least the session description more
>> customized.
>>
>> 2. A representative from the team could have been officially invited to
>> the upstream institute training.
>>
>> 3. The community building sessions and on-boarding sessions seem to
>> overlap a bit so a representative from the team could be help in those
>> sessions for Q or more interaction. Probably more collaboration/prep
>> before the summit for such things. ($0.02)
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jay S Bryant 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Project:  Cinder
>>>
>>> Attendees: Approximately 30
>>>
>>> I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder
>>> session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the
>>> presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project.  I
>>> think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something
>>> that we can continue.
>>>
>>> Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce
>>> everyone.  I did have the Sean 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Kendall Nelson]

@Nikhil, we (the organizers of Upstream Institute) sent a few emails [1][2]
out to the dev mailing list asking for help and representatives from
various projects to attend and get involved. We are also working on
building a network of project liaisons to direct newcomers to in each
project. Would you be interested in being our Glance liaison?

Let me know if you have any other Upstream Institute questions!

- Kendall(diablo_rojo)

[1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-January/110788.html
[2]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-November/108084.html

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:03 PM Nikhil Komawar 
wrote:

> Project:  Glance
>
> Attendees: ~15
>
> What was done:
>
> We started by introducing the core team (or whatever existed then), did a
> run down of Glance API documentation especially for developers, other
> references like notes for ops, best practices. We went through the
> architecture of the project. A few were interested in knowing more details
> and going in depth so we discussed the design patterns that exist today,
> scope of improvements and any blackholes therein, auxiliary services and
> performance tradeoffs etc. A lot of the discussion was free form so people
> asked questions and session was interactive.
>
>
> What worked:
>
> 1. The projector worked!
>
> 2. Session was free form, there was good turnout and it was interactive.
> (all the good things)
>
> 3. People were serious about contributing as per their
> availability/capacity to do upstream and one person showed up asking to do
> reviews.
>
>
> Lessons:
>
> 1. Could have been advertised more at least the session description more
> customized.
>
> 2. A representative from the team could have been officially invited to
> the upstream institute training.
>
> 3. The community building sessions and on-boarding sessions seem to
> overlap a bit so a representative from the team could be help in those
> sessions for Q or more interaction. Probably more collaboration/prep
> before the summit for such things. ($0.02)
>
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jay S Bryant 
> wrote:
>
>> Project:  Cinder
>>
>> Attendees: Approximately 30
>>
>> I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder
>> session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the
>> presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project.  I
>> think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something
>> that we can continue.
>>
>> Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce
>> everyone.  I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL and had
>> the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the attendees
>> could put faces with our names.
>>
>> From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the following
>> high level topics:
>>
>>- Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
>>- Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
>>- Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a bit
>>of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
>>- Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how what
>>was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
>>- Walked through the main Cinder code tree
>>- Described how to test changes to Cinder
>>
>> My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through
>> Upstream Institute.  I had coverage in the slides in case they had not been
>> through the education.  Unfortunately most of the class had not been
>> through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating those
>> concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going through real
>> world examples of working with changes in Cinder.  I got feedback from a
>> few people that having some real hands on coding examples would have been
>> helpful.
>>
>> One way we could possible handle this is to split the on-boarding to a
>> introduction section and then a more advanced second session.  The other
>> option is that we require people who are attending the on-boarding to have
>> been through Upstream Institute.  Something to think about.
>>
>> I think it was unfortunate that the session wasn't recorded.  We shared a
>> lot of good information (between good questions and having a good
>> representation of Cinder's Core team in the room) that it would have been
>> nice to capture.  Given this I am planning at some point in the near future
>> to work with Walt Boring to record a version of the presentation that can
>> be uploaded to our Cinder YouTube channel and include some coding examples.
>>
>> In summary, I think the on-boarding rooms were a great addition and the
>> Cinder team is pleased with how we used the time.  I think it is something
>> we would like to continue to invest time into developing and improving.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> [1]
>> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Nikhil Komawar]

Project:  Glance

Attendees: ~15

What was done:

We started by introducing the core team (or whatever existed then), did a
run down of Glance API documentation especially for developers, other
references like notes for ops, best practices. We went through the
architecture of the project. A few were interested in knowing more details
and going in depth so we discussed the design patterns that exist today,
scope of improvements and any blackholes therein, auxiliary services and
performance tradeoffs etc. A lot of the discussion was free form so people
asked questions and session was interactive.


What worked:

1. The projector worked!

2. Session was free form, there was good turnout and it was interactive.
(all the good things)

3. People were serious about contributing as per their
availability/capacity to do upstream and one person showed up asking to do
reviews.


Lessons:

1. Could have been advertised more at least the session description more
customized.

2. A representative from the team could have been officially invited to the
upstream institute training.

3. The community building sessions and on-boarding sessions seem to overlap
a bit so a representative from the team could be help in those sessions for
Q or more interaction. Probably more collaboration/prep before the summit
for such things. ($0.02)


Cheers

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Jay S Bryant  wrote:

> Project:  Cinder
>
> Attendees: Approximately 30
>
> I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder
> session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with the
> presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the project.  I
> think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and hopefully something
> that we can continue.
>
> Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce
> everyone.  I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL and had
> the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the attendees
> could put faces with our names.
>
> From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the following
> high level topics:
>
>- Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
>- Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
>- Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a bit
>of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
>- Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how what
>was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
>- Walked through the main Cinder code tree
>- Described how to test changes to Cinder
>
> My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through
> Upstream Institute.  I had coverage in the slides in case they had not been
> through the education.  Unfortunately most of the class had not been
> through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating those
> concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going through real
> world examples of working with changes in Cinder.  I got feedback from a
> few people that having some real hands on coding examples would have been
> helpful.
>
> One way we could possible handle this is to split the on-boarding to a
> introduction section and then a more advanced second session.  The other
> option is that we require people who are attending the on-boarding to have
> been through Upstream Institute.  Something to think about.
>
> I think it was unfortunate that the session wasn't recorded.  We shared a
> lot of good information (between good questions and having a good
> representation of Cinder's Core team in the room) that it would have been
> nice to capture.  Given this I am planning at some point in the near future
> to work with Walt Boring to record a version of the presentation that can
> be uploaded to our Cinder YouTube channel and include some coding examples.
>
> In summary, I think the on-boarding rooms were a great addition and the
> Cinder team is pleased with how we used the time.  I think it is something
> we would like to continue to invest time into developing and improving.
>
> Jay
>
> [1] https://www.slideshare.net/JayBryant2/openstack-cinder-
> onboarding-education-boston-summit-2017
>
>
> On 5/19/2017 3:43 PM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
>
> Project: Keystone
> Attendees: 12 - 15
>
> We conflicted with one of the Baremetal/VM sessions
>
> I attempted to document most of the session in my recap [0].
>
> We started out by doing a round-the-room of introductions so that folks
> could put IRC nicks to faces (we also didn't have a packed room so this
> went pretty quick). After that we cruised through a summary of keystone,
> the format of the projects, and the various processes we use. All of this
> took *maybe* 30 minutes.
>
> From there we had an open discussion and things evolved organically. We
> ended up going through:
>
>- the differences between the v2.0 and v3 APIs
>- keystonemiddleware architecture, how it aids 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Jay S Bryant]

Project:  Cinder

Attendees: Approximately 30

I was really pleased by the number of people that attended the Cinder 
session and the fact that they people in the room seemed engaged with 
the presentation and asked good questions showing interest in the 
project.  I think having the on-boardings rooms was beneficial and 
hopefully something that we can continue.


Given the number of people in the room we didn't go around and introduce 
everyone.  I did have the Sean McGinnis introduce himself as PTL and had 
the other Cinder Core members introduce themselves so that the attendees 
could put faces with our names.


From there we kicked off the presentation [1] which covered the 
following high level topics:


 * Introduction of Cinder's Repos and components
 * Quick overview of Cinder's architecture/organization
 * Pointers to the Upstream Institute education (Might have done a bit
   of a sales pitch for the next session here ;-))
 * Expanded upon the Upstream Institute education to explain how what
   was taught there specifically applied to Cinder
 * Walked through the main Cinder code tree
 * Described how to test changes to Cinder

My presentation was designed to assume that attendees had been through 
Upstream Institute.  I had coverage in the slides in case they had not 
been through the education.  Unfortunately most of the class had not 
been through the education so I did spend a portion of time re-iterating 
those concepts and less time was able to be spent at the end going 
through real world examples of working with changes in Cinder.  I got 
feedback from a few people that having some real hands on coding 
examples would have been helpful.


One way we could possible handle this is to split the on-boarding to a 
introduction section and then a more advanced second session.  The other 
option is that we require people who are attending the on-boarding to 
have been through Upstream Institute.  Something to think about.


I think it was unfortunate that the session wasn't recorded.  We shared 
a lot of good information (between good questions and having a good 
representation of Cinder's Core team in the room) that it would have 
been nice to capture.  Given this I am planning at some point in the 
near future to work with Walt Boring to record a version of the 
presentation that can be uploaded to our Cinder YouTube channel and 
include some coding examples.


In summary, I think the on-boarding rooms were a great addition and the 
Cinder team is pleased with how we used the time.  I think it is 
something we would like to continue to invest time into developing and 
improving.


Jay

[1] 
https://www.slideshare.net/JayBryant2/openstack-cinder-onboarding-education-boston-summit-2017


On 5/19/2017 3:43 PM, Lance Bragstad wrote:

Project: Keystone
Attendees: 12 - 15

We conflicted with one of the Baremetal/VM sessions

I attempted to document most of the session in my recap [0].

We started out by doing a round-the-room of introductions so that 
folks could put IRC nicks to faces (we also didn't have a packed room 
so this went pretty quick). After that we cruised through a summary of 
keystone, the format of the projects, and the various processes we 
use. All of this took *maybe* 30 minutes.


From there we had an open discussion and things evolved organically. 
We ended up going through:


  * the differences between the v2.0 and v3 APIs
  * keystonemiddleware architecture, how it aids services, and how it
interacts with keystone
  o we essentially followed an API call for creating a instance
from keystone -> nova -> glance
  * how authentication scoping works and why it works that way
  * how federation works and why it's setup the way it is
  * how federated authentication works (https://goo.gl/NfY3mr)

All of this was pretty well-received and generated a lot of productive 
discussion. We also had several seasoned keystone contributors in the 
room, which helped a lot. Most of the attendees were all curious about 
similar topics, which was great, but we totally could have split into 
separate groups given the experience we had in the room (we'll save 
that in our back pocket for next time).


[0] https://www.lbragstad.com/blog/openstack-boston-summit-recap
[1] https://www.slideshare.net/LanceBragstad/keystone-project-onboarding

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Michał Jastrzębski > wrote:


Kolla:
Attendees - full room (20-30?)
Notes - Conflict with kolla-k8s demo probably didn't help

While we didn't have etherpad, slides, recording (and video dongle
that could fit my laptop), we had great session with analog tools
(whiteboard and my voice chords). We walked through architecture of
each Kolla project, how they relate to each other and so on.

Couple things to take out from our onboarding:
1. Bring dongles
2. We could've used bigger room - people were leaving because we had
no chairs 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Miguel Lavalle]

Project: Neutron
Attendees: ~15

Neutron's session was a combination of a slide presentation (
https://www.slideshare.net/MiguelLavalle/openstack-neutron-new-developers-on-boarding)
with predefined exercises on the DevStack VM that was used during the
OpenStack Upstream Institute the weekend prior to the Summit. This is what
we did in more detail:

   - Introduce team members present in the room: Kevin Benton, Armando
   Migliaccio, Swaminathan Vasudevan and Brian Haley, We thought this was
   important to send the message that we are an open and welcoming community /
   project / team.
   - Quick overview of Neutron team organization, IRC meetings and the
   concept of the Neutron Stadium of related projects. We also showed the
   project's mascot and handed out stickers.
   - We didn't want to make any assumptions as to prior knowledge of the
   attendees, so we started from the beginning. We reviewed the concepts
   associated to ReST APIs from the point of view of Neutron. We gave them the
   exercise to create and update a port using the OpenStack client with the
   --debug option and then we reviewed the different pieces of the requests
   and responses: HTTP verb, Neutron endpoint, URI, response code, etc. We
   used annotated slides with examples to show these pieces.
   - Neutron's plug-in based architecture, core resources, core plug-in,
   extensions and service plug-ins. The exercise was to list the extensions
   configured in their DevStacks, set-up a new extension in the configuration
   files, re-start the Neutron server and see the attributes added by the new
   extension to ports using the client.
   - Back-end implementation: L2 agent. With graphic slides we reviewed how
   a port is connected to a virtual network using the integration bridge, the
   other bridges that are part of the landscape and we followed the flow of
   the L2 agent wiring a port for Nova. The exercise was to boot an instance,
   use ovs-vsctl and brctl to see how the port was wired and looked at related
   pieces of code in the OVS agent and RPC classes.
   - Back-end implementation: L3 agent. With graphic slides we reviewed how
   routers and floating ips are processed and the different types of routers
   (legacy, DVR, HA, etc.). The exercise was to associate a floating ip to the
   port of the instance created in the previous exercise and using
   iptables-save, examine the entries added by the floating ip creation. We
   also looked at relevant code in the agent and  RPC classes.
   - The ML2 plug-in. We reviewed the relationship of the ML2 plug-in and
   the DB plug-in and then, using slides with annotated pseudo-code, went over
   the inner working of the ML2 plug-in: the initiation of the DB transaction,
   pre-commit and post-commit mechanism driver methods, network and port
   contexts, type drivers, port binding, the creation of the response
   dictionary and how all these elements contribute and can affect the DB
   performance. The exercise was to review actual code and then add a
   LOG.debug statement to log the vif_type attribute resulting from a port
   binding.

It is important to mention that the 90 minutes originally scheduled weren't
long enough to cover all these topics. Since the level of interest was so
high among the audience, we decided to try to get together the following
day. With the help of the Foundation support team, we were able to schedule
a 1 hour follow up session that was attended by about a third of the
audience and where we were able to finish all the agenda.


What went well:

   - Current Neutron team members welcoming the on-boarding attendees.
   - The fact that audience members actually showed up for a follow up
   session on Thursday at 3pm and their comments at the end (there was even
   some clapping), suggests that the combination of practical exercises and
   the slides did a good job training the prospective new team team members.
   - The prompt response of the Foundation team to schedule a follow up
   session.


What needs improvement:

   - Make the OpenStack Up-Stream Institute DevStack an explicit requisite
   for the on-boarding session. While many of our attendees had the VM, many
   didn't. I think the importance of this is illustrated by the fact that the
   people motivated enough to show up for the follow up session all had the VM
   in their laptops and followed the exercise to the very end.
   - More time. In our experience, a 3 hours session with a break would be
   ideal. Given the importance for the community of bringing in new developers
   and the fact that our audience was willing to attend a follow up session, a
   3 hours up front investment in new talent seems reasonable.


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Alexandra Settle 
wrote:

> Project: Documentation and I18N
> Attendees: 3-5 (maybe?)
> Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/doc-onboarding
>
> What we did:
>
> We ran the session informally based off whoever was 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Alexandra Settle]

Project: Documentation and I18N
Attendees: 3-5 (maybe?)
Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/doc-onboarding 

What we did:

We ran the session informally based off whoever was there. Due to the small 
attendance, we just ran through how the project works (docs like code and all 
that).
Discussed the docs ML, IRC, and how best to get started (find some low hanging 
fruit). Ian also took the group through the translation team process, and gave 
a little demo on how the Zanata translation tool was used.

We gave everyone back 30 minutes of their lives.

On 5/19/17, 2:22 PM, "Sean Dague"  wrote:

This is a thread for anyone that participated in the onboarding rooms,
on either the presenter or audience side. Because we all went into this
creating things from whole cloth, I'm sure there are lots of lessons
learned.

If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
the table.

Hopefully we can consolidate some of that feedback for best practices
going forward.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Telles Nobrega]

Project: Sahara
Attendees: 6-8 (1 never involved in Sahara)

We worked on a quick overview of how Sahara works and planned to work a
little on code. Since most of the people there worked on Sahara already the
code introduction didn't make a lot of sense since the only rookie was most
interested in how to deploy and use sahara on his environment. So the
conversation took an unexpected turn and we talked more on how Sahara could
be a solution for an specific use case.

Overwall it worked well, but not as we planned from the beggining.



On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:20 AM Steven Hardy  wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:22:07AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> > This is a thread for anyone that participated in the onboarding rooms,
> > on either the presenter or audience side. Because we all went into this
> > creating things from whole cloth, I'm sure there are lots of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
> > what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
> > attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
> > it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
> > the table.
>
> TripleO:
> Attendees - nearly full room (~30 people?)
>
> We took an informal approach to our session, we polled the room asking for
> questions, and on request gave an architectural overview and some
> code/template walkthroughs, then had open questions/discussion for the
> remainder of the session.
>
> Overall it worked quite well, but next time I would like visibility of
> some specific questions/topics ahead of time to enable better preparation
> of demo/slide content, and also we should have prepared a demo environment
> prior to the session to enable easier hands-on examples/demos.
>
> Overall I thought the new track was a good idea, and the feedback I got
> from those attending was positive.
>
> The slides we used are linked from this blog post:
>
>
> http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/openstack-summit-tripleo-project.html
>
> Steve
>
> __
> 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
>
-- 

TELLES NOBREGA

SOFTWARE ENGINEER

Red Hat I 

tenob...@redhat.com

TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. 
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Steven Hardy]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:22:07AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> This is a thread for anyone that participated in the onboarding rooms,
> on either the presenter or audience side. Because we all went into this
> creating things from whole cloth, I'm sure there are lots of lessons
> learned.
> 
> If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
> what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
> attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
> it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
> the table.

TripleO:
Attendees - nearly full room (~30 people?)

We took an informal approach to our session, we polled the room asking for
questions, and on request gave an architectural overview and some
code/template walkthroughs, then had open questions/discussion for the
remainder of the session.

Overall it worked quite well, but next time I would like visibility of
some specific questions/topics ahead of time to enable better preparation
of demo/slide content, and also we should have prepared a demo environment
prior to the session to enable easier hands-on examples/demos.

Overall I thought the new track was a good idea, and the feedback I got
from those attending was positive.

The slides we used are linked from this blog post:

http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/openstack-summit-tripleo-project.html

Steve

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[joehuang]

Tricircle shared a room with Sahara, and stay there for the first half.

Around 6 persons joined the session. Due to the network issue(on the lab side) 
I am not able to logon to my environment to do the training based on live 
environment. I have to play some recorded clips, during the playing, we 
discussed a lot of topics, from the overall architecture and functionalities, 
and whether it support cross Neutron L2 network, and how to setup the 
environment to experience it. I can't remember all detail information. It seems 
45 minutes is too short for on-boarding session, lots of other topics have not 
been discussed. We leave the room after Sahara began their session, two 
projects in same room will be quite noise, many people will talk at the same 
time. After the session, one guy continue to talk with me about Tricircle for 
around half an hour.

Obviously, on-boarding session is necessary for a project, some may be 
contributors, some may be not, but there are lots of people want to learn a 
project in more detail, it'll help a project to grow contributors and 
(potential) operators.

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Sean Dague [s...@dague.net]
Sent: 19 May 2017 21:22
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, 
what worked, lessons learned

This is a thread for anyone that participated in the onboarding rooms,
on either the presenter or audience side. Because we all went into this
creating things from whole cloth, I'm sure there are lots of lessons
learned.

If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
the table.

Hopefully we can consolidate some of that feedback for best practices
going forward.

-Sean

--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Lance Bragstad]

Project: Keystone
Attendees: 12 - 15

We conflicted with one of the Baremetal/VM sessions

I attempted to document most of the session in my recap [0].

We started out by doing a round-the-room of introductions so that folks
could put IRC nicks to faces (we also didn't have a packed room so this
went pretty quick). After that we cruised through a summary of keystone,
the format of the projects, and the various processes we use. All of this
took *maybe* 30 minutes.

>From there we had an open discussion and things evolved organically. We
ended up going through:

   - the differences between the v2.0 and v3 APIs
   - keystonemiddleware architecture, how it aids services, and how it
   interacts with keystone
  - we essentially followed an API call for creating a instance from
  keystone -> nova -> glance
   - how authentication scoping works and why it works that way
   - how federation works and why it's setup the way it is
   - how federated authentication works (https://goo.gl/NfY3mr)

All of this was pretty well-received and generated a lot of productive
discussion. We also had several seasoned keystone contributors in the room,
which helped a lot. Most of the attendees were all curious about similar
topics, which was great, but we totally could have split into separate
groups given the experience we had in the room (we'll save that in our back
pocket for next time).

[0] https://www.lbragstad.com/blog/openstack-boston-summit-recap
[1] https://www.slideshare.net/LanceBragstad/keystone-project-onboarding

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Michał Jastrzębski 
wrote:

> Kolla:
> Attendees - full room (20-30?)
> Notes - Conflict with kolla-k8s demo probably didn't help
>
> While we didn't have etherpad, slides, recording (and video dongle
> that could fit my laptop), we had great session with analog tools
> (whiteboard and my voice chords). We walked through architecture of
> each Kolla project, how they relate to each other and so on.
>
> Couple things to take out from our onboarding:
> 1. Bring dongles
> 2. We could've used bigger room - people were leaving because we had
> no chairs left
> 3. Recording would be awesome
> 4. Low tech is not a bad tech
>
> All and all, when we started session I didn't know what to expect or
> what people will expect so we just...rolled with it, and people seemed
> to be happy with it:) I think onboarding rooms were great idea (kudos
> to whoever came up with it)! I'll be happy to run it again in Sydney.
>
> Cheers,
> Michal
>
>
> On 19 May 2017 at 08:12, Julien Danjou  wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19 2017, Sean Dague wrote:
> >
> >> If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
> >> what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
> >> attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
> >> it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
> >> the table.
> >
> > We shared a room for Telemetry and CloudKitty for 90 minutes.
> > I was there with Gordon Chung for Telemetry.
> > Christophe Sauthier was there for CloudKitty.
> >
> > We only had 3 people showing up in the session. One wanted to read his
> > emails in a quiet room, the two others had a couple of question on
> > Telemetry – though it was not really related to contribution as far as I
> > can recall.
> >
> > I had to leave after 45 minutes because they was an overlap with a talk
> > I was doing and rescheduling did not seem possible. And everybody left a
> > few minutes after I left apparently.
> >
> > --
> > Julien Danjou
> > -- Free Software hacker
> > -- https://julien.danjou.info
> >
> > 
> __
> > 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
> >
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Michał Jastrzębski]

Kolla:
Attendees - full room (20-30?)
Notes - Conflict with kolla-k8s demo probably didn't help

While we didn't have etherpad, slides, recording (and video dongle
that could fit my laptop), we had great session with analog tools
(whiteboard and my voice chords). We walked through architecture of
each Kolla project, how they relate to each other and so on.

Couple things to take out from our onboarding:
1. Bring dongles
2. We could've used bigger room - people were leaving because we had
no chairs left
3. Recording would be awesome
4. Low tech is not a bad tech

All and all, when we started session I didn't know what to expect or
what people will expect so we just...rolled with it, and people seemed
to be happy with it:) I think onboarding rooms were great idea (kudos
to whoever came up with it)! I'll be happy to run it again in Sydney.

Cheers,
Michal


On 19 May 2017 at 08:12, Julien Danjou  wrote:
> On Fri, May 19 2017, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
>> what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
>> attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
>> it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
>> the table.
>
> We shared a room for Telemetry and CloudKitty for 90 minutes.
> I was there with Gordon Chung for Telemetry.
> Christophe Sauthier was there for CloudKitty.
>
> We only had 3 people showing up in the session. One wanted to read his
> emails in a quiet room, the two others had a couple of question on
> Telemetry – though it was not really related to contribution as far as I
> can recall.
>
> I had to leave after 45 minutes because they was an overlap with a talk
> I was doing and rescheduling did not seem possible. And everybody left a
> few minutes after I left apparently.
>
> --
> Julien Danjou
> -- Free Software hacker
> -- https://julien.danjou.info
>
> __
> 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
>

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Julien Danjou]

On Fri, May 19 2017, Sean Dague wrote:

> If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
> what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
> attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
> it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
> the table.

We shared a room for Telemetry and CloudKitty for 90 minutes.
I was there with Gordon Chung for Telemetry.
Christophe Sauthier was there for CloudKitty.

We only had 3 people showing up in the session. One wanted to read his
emails in a quiet room, the two others had a couple of question on
Telemetry – though it was not really related to contribution as far as I
can recall.

I had to leave after 45 minutes because they was an overlap with a talk
I was doing and rescheduling did not seem possible. And everybody left a
few minutes after I left apparently.

-- 
Julien Danjou
-- Free Software hacker
-- https://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Kendall Nelson]

Thank you so much for getting this started Sean!

I have gotten a lot of feedback that people liked the on-boarding rooms,
but I would be interested to know more about what people did so we can
coordinate better next time. This round I left a lot of the decisions up to
the different teams since this was a new type of session for the Summit so
we could figure out what works best.

I started a resource collection here[1] to round up materials.  I am trying
to find a place to post them so that people that weren't able to attend to
look at since we weren't able to get recordings in the room this time-
definitely something to try to coordinate next round!


Thanks again,

-Kendall (diablo_rojo)

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/116513.html




On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:40 AM Sean Dague  wrote:

> On 05/19/2017 09:22 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
> > what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
> > attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
> > it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
> > the table.
>
> Project: Nova
> Attendees: 25 - 30
> Notes: (this conflicted with Baremetal/VM platform part 1, may have
> impacted attendance)
> Etherpad:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BOS-forum-nova-project-onboarding
>
> What we did:
>
> To get the room warmed up (it was the first post keynote session), we
> prepared a document which was an annotated flow of the logs of booting
> up a server with openstack client -
> https://github.com/sdague/nova-boot-flow/blob/master/flow.rst - and
> talked through all of that, fielding questions along the way. That
> actually took about 45 minutes because 20 minutes in the room had warmed
> up and started asking a bunch of questions (especially around scheduling
> which always seems like a hot area).
>
> We used the back half of the session for just audience questions. Some
> of the more interesting ones were diving into what a context really is
> (that's a pretty core concept in multiple projects, but one we forget is
> new to people).
>
> We did an adhoc diagramming of the basic api.py -> rpcapi.py ->
> manager.py pattern in the code that hits all the different daemons. And
> even looked at some of the directory structures on how this is organized.
>
> There was a good conversation towards the end on debug strategies. Most
> of us are print/log debuggers, but guru mediation was news to most folks
> in the room. Definitely clear that there is a need for a pdb guide for
> OpenStack (by someone that regularly uses it).
>
> There was also a good discussion around types of arguments in Nova
> function calls, and how much one can trust they know what a variable
> named "instance" really is.
>
>
> What worked:
>
> It was really good to have some interactive technical content pre canned
> to get the conversation going. Rooms start cold, and you need to get
> people interactive.
>
> Questions phase turned out really good. They also seemed pretty spread
> around the audience.
>
>
> Do differently next time:
>
> Recording would have been great.
>
> We did a poor job of fielding questions off the etherpad because my
> laptop was being used show flows or answers. Next time it would be good
> to have 2 computers up, one on the etherpad watching for questions from
> quieter people there, while we have other relevant answer material on
> the projector.
>
>
> -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Sean Dague]

On 05/19/2017 09:22 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
> what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
> attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
> it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
> the table.

Project: Nova
Attendees: 25 - 30
Notes: (this conflicted with Baremetal/VM platform part 1, may have
impacted attendance)
Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BOS-forum-nova-project-onboarding

What we did:

To get the room warmed up (it was the first post keynote session), we
prepared a document which was an annotated flow of the logs of booting
up a server with openstack client -
https://github.com/sdague/nova-boot-flow/blob/master/flow.rst - and
talked through all of that, fielding questions along the way. That
actually took about 45 minutes because 20 minutes in the room had warmed
up and started asking a bunch of questions (especially around scheduling
which always seems like a hot area).

We used the back half of the session for just audience questions. Some
of the more interesting ones were diving into what a context really is
(that's a pretty core concept in multiple projects, but one we forget is
new to people).

We did an adhoc diagramming of the basic api.py -> rpcapi.py ->
manager.py pattern in the code that hits all the different daemons. And
even looked at some of the directory structures on how this is organized.

There was a good conversation towards the end on debug strategies. Most
of us are print/log debuggers, but guru mediation was news to most folks
in the room. Definitely clear that there is a need for a pdb guide for
OpenStack (by someone that regularly uses it).

There was also a good discussion around types of arguments in Nova
function calls, and how much one can trust they know what a variable
named "instance" really is.


What worked:

It was really good to have some interactive technical content pre canned
to get the conversation going. Rooms start cold, and you need to get
people interactive.

Questions phase turned out really good. They also seemed pretty spread
around the audience.


Do differently next time:

Recording would have been great.

We did a poor job of fielding questions off the etherpad because my
laptop was being used show flows or answers. Next time it would be good
to have 2 computers up, one on the etherpad watching for questions from
quieter people there, while we have other relevant answer material on
the projector.


-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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

[openstack-dev] [all] Onboarding rooms postmortem, what did you do, what worked, lessons learned

[Sean Dague]

This is a thread for anyone that participated in the onboarding rooms,
on either the presenter or audience side. Because we all went into this
creating things from whole cloth, I'm sure there are lots of lessons
learned.

If you ran a room, please post the project, what you did in the room,
what you think worked, what you would have done differently. If you
attended a room you didn't run, please provide feedback about which one
it was, and what you thought worked / didn't work from the other side of
the table.

Hopefully we can consolidate some of that feedback for best practices
going forward.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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