Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-03-10 17:04:54 +0100:
> Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> > On 03/09/2017 12:10 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> >> Putting that aside, I appreciate your providing your input. The most
> >> consistent piece of feedback we received was around scheduling and
> >> visibility for sessions, so I think that is definitely an area for
> >> improvement at the next PTG. I heard mixed feedback on whether the
> >> ability to participate in multiple projects was better or worse than
> >> under the previous model, but understanding common conflicts ahead of
> >> time might give us a chance to schedule in a way that makes the
> >> multi-project work more possible. Did you participate in both Cinder
> >> and Manila mid-cycles in addition to the Design Summit sessions
> >> previously? Trying to understand which types of specific interactions
> >> you’re now less able to participate in.
> > 
> > Yes in the past I was able to attend all of the Manila and most of the
> > Cinder sessions at the Design summit, and I was able to attend the
> > Cinder midcycles in person and (since I'm the PTL) I was able to
> > schedule the Manila midcycles to not conflict.
> 
> On that particular bit of feedback ("making it impossible to participate
> in 2 or more vertical projects") it is feedback that I definitely heard :)
> 
> While the event structure made it generally a lot easier to tap into
> other teams (and a *lot* of them did just that), the horizontal/vertical
> split definitely made it more difficult for Manila folks to attend all
> Cinder sessions, or for Storlets folks to attend all Swift sessions. On
> a personal note, it made it more difficult for *me* to attend all
> Architecture WG and Stewardship workgroup and Release Team and Infra
> sessions, which were all going on at the same time on Monday/Tuesday. So
> it's not something that only affected vertical projects.
> 
> We can definitely improve on that, and come up with a more... creative
> way to split usage of rooms than a pretty-arbitrary grouping of projects
> into "vertical" and "horizontal" groups. There is no miracle solution
> (there will always be someone needing to be in two places at the same
> time), but the strawman split we tried for the first one is certainly
> not the optimal solution. If you have suggestions on how we can better
> map room/days, I'm all ears. I was thinking about taking input on major
> team overlaps (like the one you pointed to between Manila and Cinder) as
> a first step, and try to come up with a magic formula that would
> minimize conflicts.
> 

For those who didn't ever use it, attendees to UDS (Ubuntu Dev Summit)
would mark themselves as interested or required for sessions (in the
Launchpad blueprint system), and would express which days they'd be
at the summit.  Then a scheduling program would automatically generate
schedules with the least amount of conflicts.

I'm not saying we should copy summit's model, or (noo) use the
actual Summit django app[1]. But we _could_ use a similar algorithm,
except have project teams, instead of individuals, as the attendees,
perhaps splitting liasons/tc members/etc. off as their own groups,
and then at least have an optimal schedule generated.

A few summary points about UDS for those interested (tl;dr - It's not perfect)

 * UDS also wanted everyone to move around in the hallways every hour or
   so. There was a desire to _not_ let people "camp out" in one room. As
   a person who thrives in the bustling hallways, I like that. But those
   who need a quieter room to build confidence, and a more parliamentary
   procedure to get their voice heard are penalized. Also PTG is for
   focused hacking time too, but that could be solved by having large
   blocks for focus/pairing/etc time.

 * Running the summit scheduler in real-time as sessions and attendees
   were added created _unbelievable chaos_. There was almost always
   somebody cursing at the summit schedule screens as their most important
   session was moved to a small room, double-booked, or moved to a day
   they weren't going to be there. In my 7 or so UDS's, I think we only
   tried that for 2 of them before it was locked down the week before UDS.

 * Not running the summit scheduler in real-time meant that added
   sessions and new attendees were at a disadvantage and had to manually
   try to coordinate with the free space on the schedule. Since the
   schedule was tuned to the more static attendee base and set of
   sessions, this usually meant that the hotel bar after sessions was
   the more reliable place to have a discussion that wasn't expected.

[1] https://launchpad.net/summit

__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Thierry Carrez]

Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 12:10 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>> Putting that aside, I appreciate your providing your input. The most
>> consistent piece of feedback we received was around scheduling and
>> visibility for sessions, so I think that is definitely an area for
>> improvement at the next PTG. I heard mixed feedback on whether the
>> ability to participate in multiple projects was better or worse than
>> under the previous model, but understanding common conflicts ahead of
>> time might give us a chance to schedule in a way that makes the
>> multi-project work more possible. Did you participate in both Cinder
>> and Manila mid-cycles in addition to the Design Summit sessions
>> previously? Trying to understand which types of specific interactions
>> you’re now less able to participate in.
> 
> Yes in the past I was able to attend all of the Manila and most of the
> Cinder sessions at the Design summit, and I was able to attend the
> Cinder midcycles in person and (since I'm the PTL) I was able to
> schedule the Manila midcycles to not conflict.

On that particular bit of feedback ("making it impossible to participate
in 2 or more vertical projects") it is feedback that I definitely heard :)

While the event structure made it generally a lot easier to tap into
other teams (and a *lot* of them did just that), the horizontal/vertical
split definitely made it more difficult for Manila folks to attend all
Cinder sessions, or for Storlets folks to attend all Swift sessions. On
a personal note, it made it more difficult for *me* to attend all
Architecture WG and Stewardship workgroup and Release Team and Infra
sessions, which were all going on at the same time on Monday/Tuesday. So
it's not something that only affected vertical projects.

We can definitely improve on that, and come up with a more... creative
way to split usage of rooms than a pretty-arbitrary grouping of projects
into "vertical" and "horizontal" groups. There is no miracle solution
(there will always be someone needing to be in two places at the same
time), but the strawman split we tried for the first one is certainly
not the optimal solution. If you have suggestions on how we can better
map room/days, I'm all ears. I was thinking about taking input on major
team overlaps (like the one you pointed to between Manila and Cinder) as
a first step, and try to come up with a magic formula that would
minimize conflicts.

-- 
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] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Dmitry Tantsur]

On 03/09/2017 07:19 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:

On 03/09/2017 01:06 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:

On 03/09/2017 06:57 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:

Excerpts from Ben Swartzlander's message of 2017-03-09 11:23:31 -0500:




Combine that with the lower cost and subsidized travel support program
for the PTG, and you should end up with a more complete gathering of
developers at PTG, and a better interface with users and operators. That
is the theory, and I think it's worth trying to fit one's approach into
that, rather than try to keep doing things the old way and expecting
this new system to work.


Small correction: it does not seem that the PTG was cheaper for people
attending it.


It was substantially cheaper for many folks, actually. The venue chosen and the
city chosen is significantly cheaper than Boston.


I cannot say anything about Boston (I don't plan on going), and I'm definitely 
not saying for everyone, but here are my (rough) numbers from previous summits.


Tokyo
  flight $1000
  hotel $950

Austin
  flight $1100
  hotel $1100

Barcelona
  flight $200
  hotel $900

Atlanta PTG
  flight $1050
  hotel (recommended) $1100
  ticket $100

Overall, Atlanta would be the most expensive for me, if I used the recommended 
hotel. Even more expensive than Tokyo.




Hotel rooms in Boston are *minimum* $350 per night compared with $180 per night
in Atlanta's Sheraton.


Small correction: *real* price of Sheraton was $220. You're referring to the 
"marketing" price, which does not include a lot of what you have to pay. Dunno 
if it's the same for Boston.




Those of us in certain companies were allowed to use Airbnb which cut the
lodging costs down even further (around $80 per night per person compared with
$150 average Airbnb prices per person in Boston).

Add to that the lack of expensive vendor parties and nighttime events
(*somebody* ends up having to pay for those things, after all) and the costs for
attending (and putting on the PTG) were indeed cheaper in my experience.

-jay


It's at least not universally true. You can safely assume
the Forum to require *additional* budget compared to the classic summit.



__

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



__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Duncan Thomas]

On 9 Mar 2017 18:22, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>
> On 03/09/2017 01:06 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>
>> On 03/09/2017 06:57 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>>
>>> Excerpts from Ben Swartzlander's message of 2017-03-09 11:23:31 -0500:
>>
>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> Combine that with the lower cost and subsidized travel support program
>>> for the PTG, and you should end up with a more complete gathering of
>>> developers at PTG, and a better interface with users and operators. That
>>> is the theory, and I think it's worth trying to fit one's approach into
>>> that, rather than try to keep doing things the old way and expecting
>>> this new system to work.
>>
>>
>> Small correction: it does not seem that the PTG was cheaper for people
>> attending it.
>
>
> It was substantially cheaper for many folks, actually. The venue chosen
and the city chosen is significantly cheaper than Boston.
>
> Hotel rooms in Boston are *minimum* $350 per night compared with $180 per
night in Atlanta's Sheraton.
>
> Those of us in certain companies were allowed to use Airbnb which cut the
lodging costs down even further (around $80 per night per person compared
with $150 average Airbnb prices per person in Boston).
>
> Add to that the lack of expensive vendor parties and nighttime events
(*somebody* ends up having to pay for those things, after all) and the
costs for attending (and putting on the PTG) were indeed cheaper in my
experience.

Compared to the summit it as cheaper, but compared to the midcycles cinder
used to have it was definitely more expensive
__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Dmitry Tantsur]

On 03/09/2017 05:23 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:

I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split, but
I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from myself and other
developers so I'll express my feelings here. If there's anyone else who feels
like me please reply, otherwise I'll assume I'm just an outlier.


Mmmm, yes and no. I do feel that the PTG was a huge success for the Bare metal 
team. I also feel that this split, with all its problems, is still a step forward.


However, I also find some points you raise to be very valid.



The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year (minimum) and
makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical projects.

I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited travel
budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a good number of
people will be remote at any given meeting. From my perspective if I'm going to
be meeting with people on the phone I'd rather be on the phone myself and have
everyone on equal footing.


As it was already mentioned in this thread, mixing in-person and remove 
attendees is hardly a receipt for success, so yeah.


My initial understanding of the split was that we now send developers to the 
PTGs, and mostly PMs with one-two representatives (co-located with the event) to 
the forum. This seems to contradict the foundation vision, but I still expect it 
to happen according to how I see it :)


In addition to very valid budget concerns, there are also personal ones. 
Traveling 4 times a year is hard. Traveling overseas 4 times a year is even 
harder. Being away from your family a whole week 4 times a year (and then 
recover for few more days) may not be acceptable for some. Explaining US border 
control why you go to the same conference every 3 month may become challenging 
too :)


I don't see any easy solution, except for lowering the expectations about 
developers on the Forum.




I also normally try to participate in Cinder as well as Manila and the new PTG
structures makes that impossible. I decided to try to be positive and to wait
until after the PTG to make up my mind but having attended in Atlanta it was
exactly as bad as I expected in terms of my ability to participate in Cinder.


This is even a bigger issue. We needed to have numerous discussions between us 
in ironic and nova/neutron. The only options we had were:


1. To use Mon or Tue. Apparently, this is not what these days were meant for. 
Also many developers were still out these days, especially on Monday.


2. To sacrifice both teams time on Wed-Fri.

I'd like to suggest a less straightforward split, that will insert a 
cross-project day *between* the two team days. Roughly:


Mon - important general working groups (API WG, release management).
Tue - dedicated team day
Wed - cross-project discussions and more specific working groups.
Thu - dedicated team day
Fri - hackathon/unconference.



I will be in Boston to try to develop a firsthand opinion of the new Forum
format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For Manila I'm
proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips conferences or
meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm not going to ask
everyone to travel 4 times a year.


Me too, with my personal preference towards the PTG and several virtual meetups.

Actually, I have only one strong feeling about the Forum. I don't want to go 
there, if it involves more than 3 hours of flight time.




-Ben Swartzlander
Manila PTL








__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Jay Pipes]

On 03/09/2017 01:06 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:

On 03/09/2017 06:57 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:

Excerpts from Ben Swartzlander's message of 2017-03-09 11:23:31 -0500:




Combine that with the lower cost and subsidized travel support program
for the PTG, and you should end up with a more complete gathering of
developers at PTG, and a better interface with users and operators. That
is the theory, and I think it's worth trying to fit one's approach into
that, rather than try to keep doing things the old way and expecting
this new system to work.


Small correction: it does not seem that the PTG was cheaper for people
attending it.


It was substantially cheaper for many folks, actually. The venue chosen 
and the city chosen is significantly cheaper than Boston.


Hotel rooms in Boston are *minimum* $350 per night compared with $180 
per night in Atlanta's Sheraton.


Those of us in certain companies were allowed to use Airbnb which cut 
the lodging costs down even further (around $80 per night per person 
compared with $150 average Airbnb prices per person in Boston).


Add to that the lack of expensive vendor parties and nighttime events 
(*somebody* ends up having to pay for those things, after all) and the 
costs for attending (and putting on the PTG) were indeed cheaper in my 
experience.


-jay

> It's at least not universally true. You can safely assume

the Forum to require *additional* budget compared to the classic summit.



__

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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Dmitry Tantsur]

On 03/09/2017 06:57 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:

Excerpts from Ben Swartzlander's message of 2017-03-09 11:23:31 -0500:




Combine that with the lower cost and subsidized travel support program
for the PTG, and you should end up with a more complete gathering of
developers at PTG, and a better interface with users and operators. That
is the theory, and I think it's worth trying to fit one's approach into
that, rather than try to keep doing things the old way and expecting
this new system to work.


Small correction: it does not seem that the PTG was cheaper for people attending 
it. It's at least not universally true. You can safely assume the Forum to 
require *additional* budget compared to the classic summit.




__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Ben Swartzlander's message of 2017-03-09 11:23:31 -0500:
> I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum 
> split, but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback 
> from myself and other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If 
> there's anyone else who feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll 
> assume I'm just an outlier.
> 
> The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year 
> (minimum) and makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical 
> projects.
> 
> I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited 
> travel budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a 
> good number of people will be remote at any given meeting. From my 
> perspective if I'm going to be meeting with people on the phone I'd 
> rather be on the phone myself and have everyone on equal footing.
> 
> I also normally try to participate in Cinder as well as Manila and the 
> new PTG structures makes that impossible. I decided to try to be 
> positive and to wait until after the PTG to make up my mind but having 
> attended in Atlanta it was exactly as bad as I expected in terms of my 
> ability to participate in Cinder.
> 
> I will be in Boston to try to develop a firsthand opinion of the new 
> Forum format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For 
> Manila I'm proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips 
> conferences or meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm 
> not going to ask everyone to travel 4 times a year.
> 

If we reframe this as "how can I get the most out of this new situation"
instead of "why I don't like it" then I think you might find things to
like, and you might even find that despite the problems, it has a net
positive effect.

For instance, you are upset that you have to travel 4 times a year. But do
you need _every_ developer at the Forum to hear from operators and users?

Wouldn't you rather relieve those developers of that burden? A few of
you will have to go to the Forum, but in so doing, you should be able
to focus on the important aspect of it: USERS. If two Manila devs go to
the Forum, you can literally ignore each other the entire time and get
a massive amount of value. There's no more pressure pulling you apart in
10 directions like there was at the Design Summit.

Combine that with the lower cost and subsidized travel support program
for the PTG, and you should end up with a more complete gathering of
developers at PTG, and a better interface with users and operators. That
is the theory, and I think it's worth trying to fit one's approach into
that, rather than try to keep doing things the old way and expecting
this new system to work.

__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Ben Swartzlander]

On 03/09/2017 12:10 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:

Hi Ben,


On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Ben Swartzlander  wrote:

I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split, 
but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from myself and 
other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If there's anyone else who 
feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll assume I'm just an outlier.


“Suppressing negative feedback” is a pretty strong accusation (and I’m honestly 
not sure how you even imagine we are doing that). I searched through the last 2 
years of mailing list threads and couldn’t find negative feedback from you 
around the PTG. Same for googling around the internet in general. I might have 
missed a place where you had provided this feedback, so feel free to pass it 
along again. Also, if there’s some proof behind the accusation, I would love to 
see it so I can address it with whoever might be doing the suppressing. It’s 
certainly not something I would support anyone in the foundation doing. You can 
send it to me directly off-list if you feel more comfortable providing it that 
way.


I filled out the official PTG feedback survey in Atlanta and I 
completely panned the event in the survey. I don't know if my name was 
attached to that, but it doesn't matter. I wasn't able to attend the 
in-person feedback session because again, it was scheduled on top of 
time we were using to get work on as a Manila team.


All I know is that the announcement after the PTG was that the feedback 
on the event was all pretty good. I conclude from that that either there 
are very few people who feel like me, or that there are more and their 
feedback was ignored. This ML thread is an attempt to give voice to us 
whether it's just a handful or actually a large number.


I'm not going to write a blog entry that says "OpenStack PTG sucked". 
That would be asinine. I think this developers list is small enough that 
we can have a serious and productive discussion about whether the 
current PTG/Forum event split has merits _for the developer community_.



Putting that aside, I appreciate your providing your input. The most consistent 
piece of feedback we received was around scheduling and visibility for 
sessions, so I think that is definitely an area for improvement at the next 
PTG. I heard mixed feedback on whether the ability to participate in multiple 
projects was better or worse than under the previous model, but understanding 
common conflicts ahead of time might give us a chance to schedule in a way that 
makes the multi-project work more possible. Did you participate in both Cinder 
and Manila mid-cycles in addition to the Design Summit sessions previously? 
Trying to understand which types of specific interactions you’re now less able 
to participate in.


Yes in the past I was able to attend all of the Manila and most of the 
Cinder sessions at the Design summit, and I was able to attend the 
Cinder midcycles in person and (since I'm the PTL) I was able to 
schedule the Manila midcycles to not conflict.



I’m also interested in finding ways to support remote participation, but it’s a 
hard problem that has failed more often than it’s worked when we’ve tried it. 
I’m still open to continuing to attempt new methods—we actually brainstormed 
some ideas in Atlanta and if you have any suggestions, let’s experiment the 
next time around.


My feeling on remote participation is that it's something the project 
teams can manage themselves. If we're going to have a "virtual midcycle" 
(which many projects do) then the team can set it up and nothing is 
required from the foundation to facilitate it. Trying to mix the 
in-person interactions of a summit/forum/ptg with remote attendees 
usually just leads to a poor experience for the remote participants. 
When we have in-person events we do our best to include remote people 
who can't attend but IMO that's still inferior to planning a fully 
virtual event that puts everyone on equal footing.



The PTG was actually an idea that was initiated by development teams, and 
something that we tried to organize to make it as productive as possible for 
the teams. The goal of the PTGs is to provide focused time to that help us make 
better software, and there’s really no other benefit that the Foundation gets 
from them. We did have some teams, like Kuryr, who did not participate in 
person at the PTG. I talked to Antoni before and offered to assist with 
whatever we could when they did their VTG, and we will continue to support 
teams whether they participate in future PTGs or not.


I've been part of OpenStack a long time and my perception of history is 
a bit different. I recall a frustration from developers who attended 
design summits that it was hard to attend both the design summit and the 
conference because they were scheduled on top of eachother. What people 
wanted was a way to attend both events -- either 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Telles Nobrega]

Sahara suffered the same effect. Our community is small and we won't be
approved to meet 4 times a year.

This time around we gave higher priority to the PTG and most won't be in
Boston. I think that the PTG itself worked nice for us but it did make it
difficult, no to say impossible, to meet other vertical projects.

Bottom line is, for sahara is still early to have a verdict whether it was
good or bad, and I believe experience and time will improve the PTG. I
agree with the problems mentioned but I also think we can wait a little
more time.

Best regards,

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 14:09 Joshua Harlow  wrote:

> Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> > I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum
> > split, but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback
> > from myself and other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If
> > there's anyone else who feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll
> > assume I'm just an outlier.
>
> You aren't alone here.
>
> >
> > The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year
> > (minimum) and makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical
> > projects.
> >
> > I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited
> > travel budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a
> > good number of people will be remote at any given meeting. From my
> > perspective if I'm going to be meeting with people on the phone I'd
> > rather be on the phone myself and have everyone on equal footing.
>
> The funny part is that if you don't go to the PTG then the following is
> what u get.
>
> 'All ATCs who contributed to the Ocata release but were unable to
> attend the PTG will receive a $300 discount on the current ticket
> price for the Boston Summit. '
>
> So if you don't go to the PTGs (or attend virtually) then you get
> penalized on the summits as well, which is like, ummm, ya super awesome,
> lol.
>
> And don't get me started as to why the summits are so expensive;
> especially knowing how much it costs to join the openstack foundation
> (https://www.openstack.org/join/).
>
>
> __
> 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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Jonathan Bryce]

Hi Ben,

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Ben Swartzlander  wrote:
> 
> I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split, 
> but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from myself and 
> other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If there's anyone else who 
> feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll assume I'm just an outlier.

“Suppressing negative feedback” is a pretty strong accusation (and I’m honestly 
not sure how you even imagine we are doing that). I searched through the last 2 
years of mailing list threads and couldn’t find negative feedback from you 
around the PTG. Same for googling around the internet in general. I might have 
missed a place where you had provided this feedback, so feel free to pass it 
along again. Also, if there’s some proof behind the accusation, I would love to 
see it so I can address it with whoever might be doing the suppressing. It’s 
certainly not something I would support anyone in the foundation doing. You can 
send it to me directly off-list if you feel more comfortable providing it that 
way.

Putting that aside, I appreciate your providing your input. The most consistent 
piece of feedback we received was around scheduling and visibility for 
sessions, so I think that is definitely an area for improvement at the next 
PTG. I heard mixed feedback on whether the ability to participate in multiple 
projects was better or worse than under the previous model, but understanding 
common conflicts ahead of time might give us a chance to schedule in a way that 
makes the multi-project work more possible. Did you participate in both Cinder 
and Manila mid-cycles in addition to the Design Summit sessions previously? 
Trying to understand which types of specific interactions you’re now less able 
to participate in.

I’m also interested in finding ways to support remote participation, but it’s a 
hard problem that has failed more often than it’s worked when we’ve tried it. 
I’m still open to continuing to attempt new methods—we actually brainstormed 
some ideas in Atlanta and if you have any suggestions, let’s experiment the 
next time around.

The PTG was actually an idea that was initiated by development teams, and 
something that we tried to organize to make it as productive as possible for 
the teams. The goal of the PTGs is to provide focused time to that help us make 
better software, and there’s really no other benefit that the Foundation gets 
from them. We did have some teams, like Kuryr, who did not participate in 
person at the PTG. I talked to Antoni before and offered to assist with 
whatever we could when they did their VTG, and we will continue to support 
teams whether they participate in future PTGs or not.

Thanks for keeping an open mind on the Forum. If you have opinions around what 
will make it more or less successful, please get involved in the planning for 
it. It’s being planned and scheduled in the open with input from the dev and 
user communities. I’ll be looking out for your feedback after Boston. Promise I 
won’t do anything to suppress it, positive or negative. = )

Jonathan


> The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year (minimum) and 
> makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical projects.
> 
> I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited travel 
> budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a good number 
> of people will be remote at any given meeting. From my perspective if I'm 
> going to be meeting with people on the phone I'd rather be on the phone 
> myself and have everyone on equal footing.
> 
> I also normally try to participate in Cinder as well as Manila and the new 
> PTG structures makes that impossible. I decided to try to be positive and to 
> wait until after the PTG to make up my mind but having attended in Atlanta it 
> was exactly as bad as I expected in terms of my ability to participate in 
> Cinder.
> 
> I will be in Boston to try to develop a firsthand opinion of the new Forum 
> format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For Manila I'm 
> proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips conferences or 
> meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm not going to ask 
> everyone to travel 4 times a year.
> 
> -Ben Swartzlander
> Manila PTL
> 
> 
> On 03/07/2017 07:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I recently got more information about the space dedicated to the "Forum"
>> at the OpenStack Summit in Boston. We'll have three different types of
>> spaces available.
>> 
>> 1/ "Forum" proper
>> 
>> There will be 3 medium-sized fishbowl rooms for cross-community
>> discussions. Topics for the discussions in that space will be selected
>> and scheduled by a committee formed of TC and UC members, facilitated by
>> Foundation staff members. In case you missed it, the brainstorming for
>> topics started last week, announced 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Joshua Harlow]

Ben Swartzlander wrote:

I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum
split, but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback
from myself and other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If
there's anyone else who feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll
assume I'm just an outlier.


You aren't alone here.



The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year
(minimum) and makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical
projects.

I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited
travel budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a
good number of people will be remote at any given meeting. From my
perspective if I'm going to be meeting with people on the phone I'd
rather be on the phone myself and have everyone on equal footing.


The funny part is that if you don't go to the PTG then the following is 
what u get.


'All ATCs who contributed to the Ocata release but were unable to
attend the PTG will receive a $300 discount on the current ticket
price for the Boston Summit. '

So if you don't go to the PTGs (or attend virtually) then you get 
penalized on the summits as well, which is like, ummm, ya super awesome, 
lol.


And don't get me started as to why the summits are so expensive; 
especially knowing how much it costs to join the openstack foundation 
(https://www.openstack.org/join/).



__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Julien Danjou]

On Thu, Mar 09 2017, Ben Swartzlander wrote:

Hi Ben,

[…]

> I will be in Boston to try to develop a firsthand opinion of the new Forum
> format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For Manila I'm
> proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips conferences or
> meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm not going to ask
> everyone to travel 4 times a year.

I feel the same as you. I advocated against this change for a year now,
but waited like you to see where this would go.

This cycle I preferred to pick Summit over PTG as I think it's harder to
meet users and operators than it is to meet developer – with whom I work
with all years on IRC or mailing-lists.

Cherry on the cake, by doing this I'm not entitled to a free ATC pass to
attend the summit. I would have to spend $300 to attend a conference for
a project I wrote code for during the last 5 years. Sigh.

Our developer community shrunk this last year and I cannot envision the
benefit of spreading it over 4 events a year.

Cheers,
-- 
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Jay Faulkner]

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Ben Swartzlander  wrote:
> 
> I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split, 
> but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from myself and 
> other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If there's anyone else who 
> feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll assume I'm just an outlier.
> 
> The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year (minimum) and 
> makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical projects.
> 

+1

There was a built in assumption to the original planning, that most projects 
had a mid-cycle that people travelled to. For ironic, as an example, we 
switched those to virtual because the number of people who could get travel 
approved was very low.

-
Jay Faulkner


> I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited travel 
> budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a good number 
> of people will be remote at any given meeting. From my perspective if I'm 
> going to be meeting with people on the phone I'd rather be on the phone 
> myself and have everyone on equal footing.
> 
> I also normally try to participate in Cinder as well as Manila and the new 
> PTG structures makes that impossible. I decided to try to be positive and to 
> wait until after the PTG to make up my mind but having attended in Atlanta it 
> was exactly as bad as I expected in terms of my ability to participate in 
> Cinder.
> 
> I will be in Boston to try to develop a firsthand opinion of the new Forum 
> format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For Manila I'm 
> proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips conferences or 
> meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm not going to ask 
> everyone to travel 4 times a year.
> 
> -Ben Swartzlander
> Manila PTL
> 
> 
> On 03/07/2017 07:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I recently got more information about the space dedicated to the "Forum"
>> at the OpenStack Summit in Boston. We'll have three different types of
>> spaces available.
>> 
>> 1/ "Forum" proper
>> 
>> There will be 3 medium-sized fishbowl rooms for cross-community
>> discussions. Topics for the discussions in that space will be selected
>> and scheduled by a committee formed of TC and UC members, facilitated by
>> Foundation staff members. In case you missed it, the brainstorming for
>> topics started last week, announced by Emilien in that email:
>> 
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113115.html
>> 
>> 2/ "On-boarding" rooms
>> 
>> We'll have two rooms set up in classroom style, dedicated to project
>> teams and workgroups who want to on-board new team members. Those can
>> for example be booked by project teams to run an introduction to their
>> codebase to prospective new contributors, in the hope that they will
>> join their team in the future. Those are not meant to do traditional
>> user-facing "project intro" talks -- there is space in the conference
>> for that. They are meant to provide the next logical step in
>> contributing after Upstream University and being involved on the
>> sidelines. It covers the missing link for prospective contributors
>> between attending Summit and coming to the PTG. Kendall Nelson and Mike
>> Perez will soon announce the details for this, including how projects
>> can sign up.
>> 
>> 3/ Free hacking/meetup space
>> 
>> We'll have four or five rooms populated with roundtables for ad-hoc
>> discussions and hacking. We don't have specific plans for these -- we
>> could set up something like the PTG ethercalc for teams to book the
>> space, or keep it open. Maybe half/half.
>> 
>> More details on all this as they come up.
>> Hoping to see you there !
>> 
> 
> __
> 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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Ben Swartzlander]

I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum 
split, but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback 
from myself and other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If 
there's anyone else who feels like me please reply, otherwise I'll 
assume I'm just an outlier.


The new structure is asking developers to travel 4 times a year 
(minimum) and makes it impossible to participate in 2 or more vertical 
projects.


I know that most of the people working on Manila have pretty limited 
travel budgets, and meeting 4 times a year basically guarantees that a 
good number of people will be remote at any given meeting. From my 
perspective if I'm going to be meeting with people on the phone I'd 
rather be on the phone myself and have everyone on equal footing.


I also normally try to participate in Cinder as well as Manila and the 
new PTG structures makes that impossible. I decided to try to be 
positive and to wait until after the PTG to make up my mind but having 
attended in Atlanta it was exactly as bad as I expected in terms of my 
ability to participate in Cinder.


I will be in Boston to try to develop a firsthand opinion of the new 
Forum format but as of now I'm pretty unhappy with the proposal. For 
Manila I'm proposing that the community either meets at PTG and skips 
conferences or meetings at conferences and skips PTGs going forward. I'm 
not going to ask everyone to travel 4 times a year.


-Ben Swartzlander
Manila PTL


On 03/07/2017 07:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Hi everyone,

I recently got more information about the space dedicated to the "Forum"
at the OpenStack Summit in Boston. We'll have three different types of
spaces available.

1/ "Forum" proper

There will be 3 medium-sized fishbowl rooms for cross-community
discussions. Topics for the discussions in that space will be selected
and scheduled by a committee formed of TC and UC members, facilitated by
Foundation staff members. In case you missed it, the brainstorming for
topics started last week, announced by Emilien in that email:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113115.html

2/ "On-boarding" rooms

We'll have two rooms set up in classroom style, dedicated to project
teams and workgroups who want to on-board new team members. Those can
for example be booked by project teams to run an introduction to their
codebase to prospective new contributors, in the hope that they will
join their team in the future. Those are not meant to do traditional
user-facing "project intro" talks -- there is space in the conference
for that. They are meant to provide the next logical step in
contributing after Upstream University and being involved on the
sidelines. It covers the missing link for prospective contributors
between attending Summit and coming to the PTG. Kendall Nelson and Mike
Perez will soon announce the details for this, including how projects
can sign up.

3/ Free hacking/meetup space

We'll have four or five rooms populated with roundtables for ad-hoc
discussions and hacking. We don't have specific plans for these -- we
could set up something like the PTG ethercalc for teams to book the
space, or keep it open. Maybe half/half.

More details on all this as they come up.
Hoping to see you there !



__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Tom Fifield]

On 廿十七年三月七日 暮 11:26, Matt Riedemann wrote:

On 3/7/2017 6:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Hi everyone,

I recently got more information about the space dedicated to the "Forum"
at the OpenStack Summit in Boston. We'll have three different types of
spaces available.

1/ "Forum" proper

There will be 3 medium-sized fishbowl rooms for cross-community
discussions. Topics for the discussions in that space will be selected
and scheduled by a committee formed of TC and UC members, facilitated by
Foundation staff members. In case you missed it, the brainstorming for
topics started last week, announced by Emilien in that email:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113115.html

2/ "On-boarding" rooms

We'll have two rooms set up in classroom style, dedicated to project
teams and workgroups who want to on-board new team members. Those can
for example be booked by project teams to run an introduction to their
codebase to prospective new contributors, in the hope that they will
join their team in the future. Those are not meant to do traditional
user-facing "project intro" talks -- there is space in the conference
for that. They are meant to provide the next logical step in
contributing after Upstream University and being involved on the
sidelines. It covers the missing link for prospective contributors
between attending Summit and coming to the PTG. Kendall Nelson and Mike
Perez will soon announce the details for this, including how projects
can sign up.

3/ Free hacking/meetup space

We'll have four or five rooms populated with roundtables for ad-hoc
discussions and hacking. We don't have specific plans for these -- we
could set up something like the PTG ethercalc for teams to book the
space, or keep it open. Maybe half/half.

More details on all this as they come up.
Hoping to see you there !



Thanks for the details, this helps.

Any idea what the breakdown in days are going to be, like "Forum"
sessions are Monday/Tuesday or Tuesday/Wednesday, or are they all four
days?


Probably all four days.


The nova people that are going to be there would like to take advantage
of the face-to-face time to work on some of the priority items for the
Pike release in the free hacking/meetup space but without knowing when
the other sessions are going to be it's hard to know when we can
schedule space in the hacking pit.

If that's all TBD that's fair, I just wanted to ask.



__
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] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

[Matt Riedemann]

On 3/7/2017 6:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Hi everyone,

I recently got more information about the space dedicated to the "Forum"
at the OpenStack Summit in Boston. We'll have three different types of
spaces available.

1/ "Forum" proper

There will be 3 medium-sized fishbowl rooms for cross-community
discussions. Topics for the discussions in that space will be selected
and scheduled by a committee formed of TC and UC members, facilitated by
Foundation staff members. In case you missed it, the brainstorming for
topics started last week, announced by Emilien in that email:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113115.html

2/ "On-boarding" rooms

We'll have two rooms set up in classroom style, dedicated to project
teams and workgroups who want to on-board new team members. Those can
for example be booked by project teams to run an introduction to their
codebase to prospective new contributors, in the hope that they will
join their team in the future. Those are not meant to do traditional
user-facing "project intro" talks -- there is space in the conference
for that. They are meant to provide the next logical step in
contributing after Upstream University and being involved on the
sidelines. It covers the missing link for prospective contributors
between attending Summit and coming to the PTG. Kendall Nelson and Mike
Perez will soon announce the details for this, including how projects
can sign up.

3/ Free hacking/meetup space

We'll have four or five rooms populated with roundtables for ad-hoc
discussions and hacking. We don't have specific plans for these -- we
could set up something like the PTG ethercalc for teams to book the
space, or keep it open. Maybe half/half.

More details on all this as they come up.
Hoping to see you there !



Thanks for the details, this helps.

Any idea what the breakdown in days are going to be, like "Forum" 
sessions are Monday/Tuesday or Tuesday/Wednesday, or are they all four days?


The nova people that are going to be there would like to take advantage 
of the face-to-face time to work on some of the priority items for the 
Pike release in the free hacking/meetup space but without knowing when 
the other sessions are going to be it's hard to know when we can 
schedule space in the hacking pit.


If that's all TBD that's fair, I just wanted to ask.

--

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