[openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
This is just a follow up email to the discussion about nova's participation in the Project Team Gathering (PTG) in February right after the Ocata release. I had asked because the OpenStack Foundation is getting early feedback on which teams are planning to attend. Several people said they planned on attending the PTG during the Nova meeting so I've submitted the form saying we'll have a room for Nova. Remember at a high level that the PTG is the replacement for the midcycle meetups, except it's centrally located and organized by the foundation, and it's at the release boundaries rather than the middle. The traditional summit that we're used to is now in the middle of the release and is more for the marketing stuff that happens at the summit whereas the PTG is supposed to be strictly technical and for development, like the design summit. Personally if you care more about development discussions and would have to pick between going to the PTG or the summit, the PTG is the thing you want to try and get to now, but that's my opinion. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 11:33:35 -0500: > This is just a follow up email to the discussion about nova's > participation in the Project Team Gathering (PTG) in February right > after the Ocata release. > > I had asked because the OpenStack Foundation is getting early feedback > on which teams are planning to attend. Several people said they planned > on attending the PTG during the Nova meeting so I've submitted the form > saying we'll have a room for Nova. > > Remember at a high level that the PTG is the replacement for the > midcycle meetups, except it's centrally located and organized by the > foundation, and it's at the release boundaries rather than the middle. > > The traditional summit that we're used to is now in the middle of the > release and is more for the marketing stuff that happens at the summit > whereas the PTG is supposed to be strictly technical and for > development, like the design summit. > That's a bit different than the way I understood it. My understanding was that it was more like the fishbowls still happen, at the PTG, and the work rooms at the end of the week at the PTG would replace the mid-cycles. If we don't have fishbowls anymore, we are going to end up siloing even harder than we already do. > Personally if you care more about development discussions and would have > to pick between going to the PTG or the summit, the PTG is the thing you > want to try and get to now, but that's my opinion. > I care about cross project, and that's not going to work if it's just the nova devs in a room with their own agenda and I have to sit there all day to get to the 2 or 3 topics that affect my efforts. __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On 10/6/2016 12:23 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 11:33:35 -0500: This is just a follow up email to the discussion about nova's participation in the Project Team Gathering (PTG) in February right after the Ocata release. I had asked because the OpenStack Foundation is getting early feedback on which teams are planning to attend. Several people said they planned on attending the PTG during the Nova meeting so I've submitted the form saying we'll have a room for Nova. Remember at a high level that the PTG is the replacement for the midcycle meetups, except it's centrally located and organized by the foundation, and it's at the release boundaries rather than the middle. The traditional summit that we're used to is now in the middle of the release and is more for the marketing stuff that happens at the summit whereas the PTG is supposed to be strictly technical and for development, like the design summit. That's a bit different than the way I understood it. My understanding was that it was more like the fishbowls still happen, at the PTG, and the work rooms at the end of the week at the PTG would replace the mid-cycles. If we don't have fishbowls anymore, we are going to end up siloing even harder than we already do. Personally if you care more about development discussions and would have to pick between going to the PTG or the summit, the PTG is the thing you want to try and get to now, but that's my opinion. I care about cross project, and that's not going to work if it's just the nova devs in a room with their own agenda and I have to sit there all day to get to the 2 or 3 topics that affect my efforts. __ 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 Sorry yeah I screwed that up. I re-read the PTG email and the first two days are cross-project things, and Wed-Fri are meetup style at the PTG, it's not time-boxed sessions like the design summit, unless again I'm screwing this up and this is just a thing that's not explainable to mere mortals until we actually experience one. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 13:52:09 -0500: > On 10/6/2016 12:23 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 11:33:35 -0500: > >> This is just a follow up email to the discussion about nova's > >> participation in the Project Team Gathering (PTG) in February right > >> after the Ocata release. > >> > >> I had asked because the OpenStack Foundation is getting early feedback > >> on which teams are planning to attend. Several people said they planned > >> on attending the PTG during the Nova meeting so I've submitted the form > >> saying we'll have a room for Nova. > >> > >> Remember at a high level that the PTG is the replacement for the > >> midcycle meetups, except it's centrally located and organized by the > >> foundation, and it's at the release boundaries rather than the middle. > >> > >> The traditional summit that we're used to is now in the middle of the > >> release and is more for the marketing stuff that happens at the summit > >> whereas the PTG is supposed to be strictly technical and for > >> development, like the design summit. > >> > > > > That's a bit different than the way I understood it. My understanding > > was that it was more like the fishbowls still happen, at the PTG, and the > > work rooms at the end of the week at the PTG would replace the mid-cycles. > > > > If we don't have fishbowls anymore, we are going to end up siloing even > > harder than we already do. > > > >> Personally if you care more about development discussions and would have > >> to pick between going to the PTG or the summit, the PTG is the thing you > >> want to try and get to now, but that's my opinion. > >> > > > > I care about cross project, and that's not going to work if it's just > > the nova devs in a room with their own agenda and I have to sit there > > all day to get to the 2 or 3 topics that affect my efforts. > > > > __ > > 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 > > > > Sorry yeah I screwed that up. I re-read the PTG email and the first two > days are cross-project things, and Wed-Fri are meetup style at the PTG, > it's not time-boxed sessions like the design summit, unless again I'm > screwing this up and this is just a thing that's not explainable to mere > mortals until we actually experience one. It's not fully time-boxed, but as Clint pointed out it might be useful to establish some sort of estimated schedule so cross-team discussions can be coordinated. Doug __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 13:52:09 -0500: >> Sorry yeah I screwed that up. I re-read the PTG email and the first two >> days are cross-project things, and Wed-Fri are meetup style at the PTG, >> it's not time-boxed sessions like the design summit, unless again I'm >> screwing this up and this is just a thing that's not explainable to mere >> mortals until we actually experience one. > > It's not fully time-boxed, but as Clint pointed out it might be > useful to establish some sort of estimated schedule so cross-team > discussions can be coordinated. The first two days are for horizontal teams and cross-project effort participants to meet. Those are *not* 40-min timeboxed fishbowl discussions, each room will be dedicated to a given effort for two full days. That said, to facilitate having critical discussions, we'll set up some system to announce that a specific discussion will happen at a specific time. Open to options here (could be low-tech like mailing-list or whiteboard, high-tech with some specific webapp), but the idea would be to be able to easily find out when you should probably go out of your team room and join another. -- 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 11:33:35 -0500: >> Remember at a high level that the PTG is the replacement for the >> midcycle meetups, except it's centrally located and organized by the >> foundation, and it's at the release boundaries rather than the middle. >> >> The traditional summit that we're used to is now in the middle of the >> release and is more for the marketing stuff that happens at the summit >> whereas the PTG is supposed to be strictly technical and for >> development, like the design summit. > > That's a bit different than the way I understood it. My understanding > was that it was more like the fishbowls still happen, at the PTG, and the > work rooms at the end of the week at the PTG would replace the mid-cycles. > > If we don't have fishbowls anymore, we are going to end up siloing even > harder than we already do. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, cross-project efforts will have time and space in the first part of the PTG week, while vertical teams will have time and space in the second part of the PTG week. By separating the time frames dedicated to vertical teams and cross-project teams, we actually hope to encourage people to break out their natural silo. It's also worth noting that there will still be cross-community discussions (think: some Ops with some Devs with some End users in fishbowls to discuss community-wide topics) at the "Forum" part at the OpenStack Summit starting in Boston. We don't need *all* developers to be present, but enough devs (and enough ops and enough end users) should be present to allow us to successfully close the feedback loop (a bit similar to what we did with encouraging PTLs and other devs to attend Ops Summit / Ops midcycles). -- 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-10-07 10:20:51 +0200: > Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-06 13:52:09 -0500: > >> Sorry yeah I screwed that up. I re-read the PTG email and the first two > >> days are cross-project things, and Wed-Fri are meetup style at the PTG, > >> it's not time-boxed sessions like the design summit, unless again I'm > >> screwing this up and this is just a thing that's not explainable to mere > >> mortals until we actually experience one. > > > > It's not fully time-boxed, but as Clint pointed out it might be > > useful to establish some sort of estimated schedule so cross-team > > discussions can be coordinated. > > The first two days are for horizontal teams and cross-project effort > participants to meet. Those are *not* 40-min timeboxed fishbowl > discussions, each room will be dedicated to a given effort for two full > days. > > That said, to facilitate having critical discussions, we'll set up some > system to announce that a specific discussion will happen at a specific > time. Open to options here (could be low-tech like mailing-list or > whiteboard, high-tech with some specific webapp), but the idea would be > to be able to easily find out when you should probably go out of your > team room and join another. > My hope was that it would be "the summit without the noise". Sounds like it will be "the summit without the noise, or the organization". I'd really like to see time boxes for most if not all of it, even if many of the boxes are just half a day of "work time" which means "we want to work on stuff together without the overhead of less involved participants." The two days of cross project is awesome. But there are also big single-project initiatives that have cross-project interest anyway. For instance, the movement of the scheduler out of Nova is most definitely a Nova session, but it has ramifications for oslo, performance, neutron, cinder, architecture, API-WG, etc. etc. If we don't know when Nova is going to discuss it, how can we be there to influence that discussion? __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On 7 October 2016 at 19:53, Clint Byrum wrote: > > My hope was that it would be "the summit without the noise". Sounds like > it will be "the summit without the noise, or the organization". > > I'd really like to see time boxes for most if not all of it, even if many > of the boxes are just half a day of "work time" which means "we want to > work on stuff together without the overhead of less involved participants." > > The two days of cross project is awesome. But there are also big > single-project initiatives that have cross-project interest anyway. > > For instance, the movement of the scheduler out of Nova is most definitely > a Nova session, but it has ramifications for oslo, performance, neutron, > cinder, architecture, API-WG, etc. etc. If we don't know when Nova is > going to discuss it, how can we be there to influence that discussion? I've got to agree entirely here. I am mostly interested in cinder stuff, but I've interest and a stake in specific nova and glance topics... getting involved in those is going to be impossible without some sort of schedule. -- Duncan Thomas __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2016-10-10 14:47:12 +0300: > On 7 October 2016 at 19:53, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > > My hope was that it would be "the summit without the noise". Sounds like > > it will be "the summit without the noise, or the organization". > > > > I'd really like to see time boxes for most if not all of it, even if many > > of the boxes are just half a day of "work time" which means "we want to > > work on stuff together without the overhead of less involved participants." > > > > The two days of cross project is awesome. But there are also big > > single-project initiatives that have cross-project interest anyway. > > > > For instance, the movement of the scheduler out of Nova is most definitely > > a Nova session, but it has ramifications for oslo, performance, neutron, > > cinder, architecture, API-WG, etc. etc. If we don't know when Nova is > > going to discuss it, how can we be there to influence that discussion? > > > I've got to agree entirely here. I am mostly interested in cinder stuff, > but I've interest and a stake in specific nova and glance topics... getting > involved in those is going to be impossible without some sort of schedule. > We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of the PTG time? It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. We could also just say, as I think Thierry was hinting at elsewhere in this thread, that each team should publish its own schedule of topics using some sort of unconference-like system (notecards on a board, etherpad, whatever). That might make it harder to resolve conflicts, though. What do other folks think? Doug __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On 10/10/2016 08:37 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from > the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time > for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you > describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of > the PTG time? > > It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, > because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. > We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project > topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all > of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all > teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. > > We could also just say, as I think Thierry was hinting at elsewhere > in this thread, that each team should publish its own schedule of > topics using some sort of unconference-like system (notecards on a > board, etherpad, whatever). That might make it harder to resolve > conflicts, though. > > What do other folks think? I feel like when we went down this path for the PTG, one of the assurances was that it would be unstructured time, like the midcycles, which is very productive. Having a long running etherpad is fine (and kind of expected), but I think building timeboxing in before the event seems odd. There are so many unknowns here, but taking away one of the primary things that made midcycles productive for people in teams, to optimize for track hopping, seems odd. If there are topics that span teams, there are 2 days up front. Ensuring there is space to expand topics into there would be good, and not just make those horizontal effort days. -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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:37:53AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from > the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time > for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you > describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of > the PTG time? > > It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, > because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. > We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project > topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all > of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all > teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. Having even just one day of scheduled topics might make it easier to organize around topics that don't necessarily fall under the "cross project" category, yet still affect more than one project and would benefit from a set time for all to attend. Whether that is one day dedicated to that format, or something like AMs scheduled, PMs freeform, I do think it is good to have the mix. We've been able to make it through a lot of topics by not timeboxing certain things, so the unscheduled part definitely has benefit. The risk with an AM/PM split would be, as an example, that Nova has something scheduled that is significant to Cinder, so Cinder has to dedicated a scheduled slot to match up with it. Just a thought, but if we so split days like that, it might actually be good to have an A track and B track, where A tracks have AMs scheduled and B tracks have PMs scheduled. Maybe making things more complicated than they need to be, but if Nova has scheduled sessions in the morning and Cinder unscheduled, it might make it easy to take break and attend the other sessions, and vice versa. Sean (smcginnis) __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-10-10 09:23:43 -0400: > On 10/10/2016 08:37 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from > > the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time > > for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you > > describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of > > the PTG time? > > > > It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, > > because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. > > We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project > > topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all > > of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all > > teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. > > > > We could also just say, as I think Thierry was hinting at elsewhere > > in this thread, that each team should publish its own schedule of > > topics using some sort of unconference-like system (notecards on a > > board, etherpad, whatever). That might make it harder to resolve > > conflicts, though. > > > > What do other folks think? > > I feel like when we went down this path for the PTG, one of the > assurances was that it would be unstructured time, like the midcycles, > which is very productive. Having a long running etherpad is fine (and > kind of expected), but I think building timeboxing in before the event > seems odd. > > There are so many unknowns here, but taking away one of the primary > things that made midcycles productive for people in teams, to optimize > for track hopping, seems odd. > > If there are topics that span teams, there are 2 days up front. Ensuring > there is space to expand topics into there would be good, and not just > make those horizontal effort days. > > -Sean > So you're proposing that we use time on Monday and Tuesday for multi-project as well as cross-project discussions? That works for me. It may mean some folks who were planning to skip those and arrive later in the week will show up earlier and participate in more discussions. Do we have space for those sorts of meetings on Monday and Tuesday? Doug __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On 10/10/2016 10:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-10-10 09:23:43 -0400: >> On 10/10/2016 08:37 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> >>> We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from >>> the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time >>> for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you >>> describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of >>> the PTG time? >>> >>> It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, >>> because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. >>> We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project >>> topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all >>> of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all >>> teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. >>> >>> We could also just say, as I think Thierry was hinting at elsewhere >>> in this thread, that each team should publish its own schedule of >>> topics using some sort of unconference-like system (notecards on a >>> board, etherpad, whatever). That might make it harder to resolve >>> conflicts, though. >>> >>> What do other folks think? >> >> I feel like when we went down this path for the PTG, one of the >> assurances was that it would be unstructured time, like the midcycles, >> which is very productive. Having a long running etherpad is fine (and >> kind of expected), but I think building timeboxing in before the event >> seems odd. >> >> There are so many unknowns here, but taking away one of the primary >> things that made midcycles productive for people in teams, to optimize >> for track hopping, seems odd. >> >> If there are topics that span teams, there are 2 days up front. Ensuring >> there is space to expand topics into there would be good, and not just >> make those horizontal effort days. >> >> -Sean >> > > So you're proposing that we use time on Monday and Tuesday for > multi-project as well as cross-project discussions? That works for > me. It may mean some folks who were planning to skip those and > arrive later in the week will show up earlier and participate in > more discussions. > > Do we have space for those sorts of meetings on Monday and Tuesday? Yes, or at least allow some flexibility for it. I think scheduler service breakout would be a good topic to fit into there (one of the examples listed earlier). The kinds of things we know will impact a set of projects. On the technology/support from, it feels like it would be good to have the equivalent of meeting bot running for every room the entire time (maybe in project channels?). So that #topic and #agree could be recorded there and broadcast in a way that it would be easy for everyone to see. -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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On 10/10/2016 8:59 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:37:53AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of the PTG time? It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. Having even just one day of scheduled topics might make it easier to organize around topics that don't necessarily fall under the "cross project" category, yet still affect more than one project and would benefit from a set time for all to attend. Whether that is one day dedicated to that format, or something like AMs scheduled, PMs freeform, I do think it is good to have the mix. We've been able to make it through a lot of topics by not timeboxing certain things, so the unscheduled part definitely has benefit. The risk with an AM/PM split would be, as an example, that Nova has something scheduled that is significant to Cinder, so Cinder has to dedicated a scheduled slot to match up with it. Just a thought, but if we so split days like that, it might actually be good to have an A track and B track, where A tracks have AMs scheduled and B tracks have PMs scheduled. Maybe making things more complicated than they need to be, but if Nova has scheduled sessions in the morning and Cinder unscheduled, it might make it easy to take break and attend the other sessions, and vice versa. Sean (smcginnis) __ 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 I think we're probably over-complicating this. The nova/cinder midcycles have happened at the same time in different timezones for the last two releases. We've scheduled a time on a particular day and time that works for both teams to get into a hangout session. Yes it's a scheduled thing, but it's still pretty informal and when you only have to deal with maybe a couple of those types of things during a midcycle it's not overwhelming to plan ahead of time. If the PTG turns into the design summit with 40 minute blocks of discussion, it's going to really negatively impact the productivity of midcycles. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-10 11:51:36 -0500: > On 10/10/2016 8:59 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:37:53AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >>> > >> > >> We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from > >> the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time > >> for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you > >> describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of > >> the PTG time? > >> > >> It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, > >> because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. > >> We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project > >> topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all > >> of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all > >> teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. > > > > Having even just one day of scheduled topics might make it easier to > > organize around topics that don't necessarily fall under the "cross > > project" category, yet still affect more than one project and would > > benefit from a set time for all to attend. > > > > Whether that is one day dedicated to that format, or something like AMs > > scheduled, PMs freeform, I do think it is good to have the mix. We've > > been able to make it through a lot of topics by not timeboxing certain > > things, so the unscheduled part definitely has benefit. > > > > The risk with an AM/PM split would be, as an example, that Nova has > > something scheduled that is significant to Cinder, so Cinder has to > > dedicated a scheduled slot to match up with it. Just a thought, but if > > we so split days like that, it might actually be good to have an A track > > and B track, where A tracks have AMs scheduled and B tracks have PMs > > scheduled. Maybe making things more complicated than they need to be, > > but if Nova has scheduled sessions in the morning and Cinder > > unscheduled, it might make it easy to take break and attend the other > > sessions, and vice versa. > > > > Sean (smcginnis) > > > > __ > > 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 > > > > I think we're probably over-complicating this. The nova/cinder midcycles > have happened at the same time in different timezones for the last two > releases. We've scheduled a time on a particular day and time that works > for both teams to get into a hangout session. Yes it's a scheduled > thing, but it's still pretty informal and when you only have to deal > with maybe a couple of those types of things during a midcycle it's not > overwhelming to plan ahead of time. > > If the PTG turns into the design summit with 40 minute blocks of > discussion, it's going to really negatively impact the productivity of > midcycles. > I think there's some perspective warping going on, and it's very concerning to me. Productivity inside the project is great, and we should definitely box out more than just one day of the PTG for just those high bandwidth internal project face to face discussions. However, I think there's a danger of siloing even further if all three days are just project team open ended face time. Those 40 minute sessions may not seem productive to the project team, but they are massively helpful for newcomers, for those who are shifting focus, and for those who want to influence design at the early stages. They're also incredibly useful for being able to tell the general developer community what the project is doing, which I'm surprised more people don't want. What I'd suggest is that we do have a single schedule, and that project teams schedule their time to suit their needs, with the following guidelines: If you are going to discuss a large spec for the first time in the week, dedicate a 40 minute session to that initial discussion on Wednesday. If you are going to discuss something that is controversial for the first time in the week, bring that up in a 40 minute summary session on Wednesday. This might lead to what, 5 or 6 40 minute sessions on Wednesday at the worst? The rest can just be project team work time. However, it gives people like me, who want to make sure we're paying attention to the right stuff in many projects a chance to introduce ourselves, raise a hand and ask a few questions, and insert ourselves in the agenda so we can be pinged and hopefully participate where it makes sense. Whatever we do, please consider dismantling the silos, rather than reinforcing them. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscr
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Le 10/10/2016 19:24, Clint Byrum a écrit : Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-10-10 11:51:36 -0500: On 10/10/2016 8:59 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:37:53AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of the PTG time? It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. Having even just one day of scheduled topics might make it easier to organize around topics that don't necessarily fall under the "cross project" category, yet still affect more than one project and would benefit from a set time for all to attend. Whether that is one day dedicated to that format, or something like AMs scheduled, PMs freeform, I do think it is good to have the mix. We've been able to make it through a lot of topics by not timeboxing certain things, so the unscheduled part definitely has benefit. The risk with an AM/PM split would be, as an example, that Nova has something scheduled that is significant to Cinder, so Cinder has to dedicated a scheduled slot to match up with it. Just a thought, but if we so split days like that, it might actually be good to have an A track and B track, where A tracks have AMs scheduled and B tracks have PMs scheduled. Maybe making things more complicated than they need to be, but if Nova has scheduled sessions in the morning and Cinder unscheduled, it might make it easy to take break and attend the other sessions, and vice versa. Sean (smcginnis) __ 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 I think we're probably over-complicating this. The nova/cinder midcycles have happened at the same time in different timezones for the last two releases. We've scheduled a time on a particular day and time that works for both teams to get into a hangout session. Yes it's a scheduled thing, but it's still pretty informal and when you only have to deal with maybe a couple of those types of things during a midcycle it's not overwhelming to plan ahead of time. If the PTG turns into the design summit with 40 minute blocks of discussion, it's going to really negatively impact the productivity of midcycles. I think there's some perspective warping going on, and it's very concerning to me. Productivity inside the project is great, and we should definitely box out more than just one day of the PTG for just those high bandwidth internal project face to face discussions. However, I think there's a danger of siloing even further if all three days are just project team open ended face time. Those 40 minute sessions may not seem productive to the project team, but they are massively helpful for newcomers, for those who are shifting focus, and for those who want to influence design at the early stages. They're also incredibly useful for being able to tell the general developer community what the project is doing, which I'm surprised more people don't want. I don't get why we would create silos if we respect the open agenda like we already do. The only difference between Summit design sessions and midcycles is that we don't time-box the bullet points that we want to discuss, but we still expose those bullet points far before the event. Take the Nova contributors meetup on Friday. That etherpad is pretty well public, and anyone can look at it to know that we'll discuss around those topics. The only difference is that people don't know *when* during that day we will discuss a specific topic, but that's a question that Sean, Doug and Thierry already began to think about possible solutions. A silo implies a will of not openly expose our thoughts and refrain communicating. Here, I think that's actually the contrary that will happen because we'll openly communicate live on the progress we're doing on our agenda, which was not the case before. Either way, it could be confusing that the proposal aims to reduce attendance conflicts. Whatever the agenda is time-boxed or free, there will be cases where people would like to attend two simultaneous conversations, but that's a natural behaviour that we can't solve. The fact that you could be concerned by missing some crucial conversation because a conflict won't be solved by leaving us time-boxed. Just consider
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-10-10 09:23:43 -0400: >> On 10/10/2016 08:37 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> >>> We had a lot of feedback that the unstructured discussion time from >>> the Friday "meetups" at the summits were the most productive time >>> for teams, but I'm sure there are quite a few cases like what you >>> describe. Maybe the solution is to schedule part, but not all, of >>> the PTG time? >>> >>> It would be hard to say that a particular day is or is not scheduled, >>> because not all teams will have rooms available to them every day. >>> We could slice it the other way, though, and say that multi-project >>> topics should be scheduled in the morning. That still leaves all >>> of the afternoons for less structured discussions. Of course, not all >>> teams will necessarily have multi-project topics. >>> >>> We could also just say, as I think Thierry was hinting at elsewhere >>> in this thread, that each team should publish its own schedule of >>> topics using some sort of unconference-like system (notecards on a >>> board, etherpad, whatever). That might make it harder to resolve >>> conflicts, though. >>> >>> What do other folks think? >> >> I feel like when we went down this path for the PTG, one of the >> assurances was that it would be unstructured time, like the midcycles, >> which is very productive. Having a long running etherpad is fine (and >> kind of expected), but I think building timeboxing in before the event >> seems odd. >> >> There are so many unknowns here, but taking away one of the primary >> things that made midcycles productive for people in teams, to optimize >> for track hopping, seems odd. I totally agree. We don't want to impose some structure or force any artificial timeboxing. The only reason we do that at the Summit is to align with conference talks time slots... But it's pretty clear from the midcycles and from the Friday "contributors meetups" that the open format is the most productive setup. That doesn't prevent us from facilitating ad-hoc inter-team discussions. For example, if you're Nova and you want to discuss QA or release management, having some centralized way of announcing that you'll have a given discussion at a given time will increase the chances that QA or Release Management members will show up at the right time. But in my idea it would still be very informal. >> If there are topics that span teams, there are 2 days up front. Ensuring >> there is space to expand topics into there would be good, and not just >> make those horizontal effort days. > > So you're proposing that we use time on Monday and Tuesday for > multi-project as well as cross-project discussions? That works for > me. It may mean some folks who were planning to skip those and > arrive later in the week will show up earlier and participate in > more discussions. Yes -- for pre-defined, major inter-project discussions, it's just simpler to block some space on the first two days. > Do we have space for those sorts of meetings on Monday and Tuesday? It's still hard to predict at this stage, but we /should/ have extra space on the Monday-Tuesday (there are more vertical teams than horizontal teams). We plan to give rooms for goals, but if we know of a particular inter-project topic that needs to be discussed, we can dedicate a room for one or two days to that as well. -- 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Clint Byrum wrote: > I think there's some perspective warping going on, and it's very > concerning to me. > > Productivity inside the project is great, and we should definitely box > out more than just one day of the PTG for just those high bandwidth > internal project face to face discussions. > > However, I think there's a danger of siloing even further if all three > days are just project team open ended face time. Those 40 minute sessions > may not seem productive to the project team, but they are massively > helpful for newcomers, for those who are shifting focus, and for those > who want to influence design at the early stages. They're also incredibly > useful for being able to tell the general developer community what the > project is doing, which I'm surprised more people don't want. > [...] The PTG event is (currently) optimized for team productivity (much like the midcycles, and the "work sessions" or the "contributors meetups" at the past Design Summits). There will be space for inter-project and cross-project/horizontal stuff, but mostly for getting work done cross-project and inter-project, rather than discuss high-level stuff. In contrast, the OpenStack Summit is when we'll reach out beyond existing team members for feedback, recruitment or very early design requirements. It's where the operators and newcomers you need to have that discussion with will be. So the "forum" in Boston will be where we can have those open, beyond-the-team discussions: the plan is to keep the scheduled 40-min format and fishbowl setup for that. We should also have specific space reserved for recruitment sessions -- if you want to welcome new contributors and give them an overview of how the team works, the current focus, and an introduction to hacking on your project, the goal is to have space for that at the Summit as well. For newcomers, or for "those who want to influence design at the early stages", the Forum at the OpenStack Summit should be the best place. At the PTG it should really be too late to "influence design at the early stages". It's more where you decide what actually will get worked on in the cycle, priorities, and get quick progress on critical work, with the people who are already signed up to do some work. > Whatever we do, please consider dismantling the silos, rather than > reinforcing them. We do dismantle the silos. (1) the upstream silos between vertical and horizontal teams, by setting up different timeframes in the PTG week for both, allowing and encouraging people to participate in both. (2) the silos between upstream and downstream, by making sure that upstream devs are no longer bunkered in team rooms during the summit week, and more available to engage with and listen to the rest of the community. The whole idea behind splitting the design summit into two events is to remove the conflicts between getting things done and listening to others, by setting clear separated times for each. -- 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-10-11 14:04:55 +0200: > Clint Byrum wrote: > > > Whatever we do, please consider dismantling the silos, rather than > > reinforcing them. > > We do dismantle the silos. (1) the upstream silos between vertical and > horizontal teams, by setting up different timeframes in the PTG week for > both, allowing and encouraging people to participate in both. (2) the > silos between upstream and downstream, by making sure that upstream devs > are no longer bunkered in team rooms during the summit week, and more > available to engage with and listen to the rest of the community. The > whole idea behind splitting the design summit into two events is to > remove the conflicts between getting things done and listening to > others, by setting clear separated times for each. > That's fair, and I can see why it's being done this way. I do think it will deepen some of our communication problems, but there are other efforts to address those, so maybe we'll find a balance. Since there seems to be broad based resistance to time boxing anything project specific, I'd like to propose a compromise: I'd like to ask that teams allow people to add their IRC nick to the agenda items they'd like to be included in, and at the beginning of a topic, courtesy pings go out. No need to block the discussion on that person arriving or not, but just give them a heads up that it is happening so they can join or watch the notes. __ 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] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
Clint Byrum wrote:
> [...]
> Since there seems to be broad based resistance to time boxing anything
> project specific, I'd like to propose a compromise: I'd like to ask that
> teams allow people to add their IRC nick to the agenda items they'd like
> to be included in, and at the beginning of a topic, courtesy pings go
> out. No need to block the discussion on that person arriving or not,
> but just give them a heads up that it is happening so they can join or
> watch the notes.
Good idea. We could set up some #openstack-ptg channel where we'd
recommend that attendees hang out so that PSAs can be sent out there
("SpamapS, please join the Nova room for immediate boarding"). Or just
reuse #openstack-dev for those.
--
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
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FYI, nova plans to have a room at the PTG in February
On 10/11/2016 9:05 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: Since there seems to be broad based resistance to time boxing anything project specific, I'd like to propose a compromise: I'd like to ask that teams allow people to add their IRC nick to the agenda items they'd like to be included in, and at the beginning of a topic, courtesy pings go out. No need to block the discussion on that person arriving or not, but just give them a heads up that it is happening so they can join or watch the notes. __ 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 This is basically what we already always did at the midcycles. A person has an agenda item with their nick. If we're going to talk about their thing and they aren't in the room, we ping them (or stick out head out in the hallway and tell them to get their arse in the room to talk). If they can't at that time, then we move on and come back when that person is available. It's when we have people remote, or in other midcycles, that we need to schedule specific times to talk, but for people there in person it's not a problem, which it sounds like should be the case with the PTG. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ 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
