Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Jimmy McArthur]

Thanks to everyone that weighed in! We'll be working on some updated 
language around the event to clarify the inclusion of the Ops 
community.  We'll plan to float that to both operators and dev lists 
when we're a little further along.  Meantime, if you have any questions 
or concerns, don't hesitate to reach out.


Thanks all!
Jimmy


Matt Van Winkle 
April 3, 2018 at 11:43 AM
Looks like we can move forward with co-location!. Jimmy, let us know 
when we need to work time in for you or other Foundation folks to 
discuss more details in the UC meeting and/or Ops Meetup Team meetings.


Thanks!
VW

On 4/3/18, 3:49 AM, "Shintaro Mizuno"  
wrote:


I'm also +1 on this.

I've circulated to the Japanese Ops group and heard no objection so
would be more +1s from our community.

Shintaro
--
Shintaro MIZUNO (水野伸太郎)
NTT Software Innovation Center
TEL: 0422-59-4977
E-mail: mizuno.shint...@lab.ntt.co.jp


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Shintaro Mizuno 
April 3, 2018 at 3:47 AM
I'm also +1 on this.

I've circulated to the Japanese Ops group and heard no objection so 
would be more +1s from our community.


Shintaro
Thierry Carrez 
April 3, 2018 at 3:33 AM

As a data point, in a recent survey 89% of surveyed developers supported
that the Ops meetup should happen at the same time and place. Amongst
past PTG attendees, that support raises to 92%. Furthermore I only heard
good things about the Public Cloud WG participating to the Dublin PTG.

So I don't think anyone views it as "their party" -- just as an event
where we all get stuff done.

Erik McCormick 
April 2, 2018 at 3:57 PM
I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't 
hate on us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  
It's basically what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so.


Cheers
Erik

PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  
kids,  etc.



Melvin Hillsman 
April 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM
+1




--
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
mrhills...@gmail.com 
mobile: (832) 264-2646


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Matt Van Winkle]

Looks like we can move forward with co-location!. Jimmy, let us know when we 
need to work time in for you or other Foundation folks to discuss more details 
in the UC meeting and/or Ops Meetup Team meetings.

Thanks!
VW

On 4/3/18, 3:49 AM, "Shintaro Mizuno"  wrote:

I'm also +1 on this.

I've circulated to the Japanese Ops group and heard no objection so 
would be more +1s from our community.

Shintaro
-- 
Shintaro MIZUNO (水野伸太郎)
NTT Software Innovation Center
TEL: 0422-59-4977
E-mail: mizuno.shint...@lab.ntt.co.jp


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Shintaro Mizuno]

I'm also +1 on this.

I've circulated to the Japanese Ops group and heard no objection so 
would be more +1s from our community.


Shintaro
--
Shintaro MIZUNO (水野伸太郎)
NTT Software Innovation Center
TEL: 0422-59-4977
E-mail: mizuno.shint...@lab.ntt.co.jp


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Thierry Carrez]

Erik McCormick wrote:
> I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't
> hate on us for crashing their party.

As a data point, in a recent survey 89% of surveyed developers supported
that the Ops meetup should happen at the same time and place. Amongst
past PTG attendees, that support raises to 92%. Furthermore I only heard
good things about the Public Cloud WG participating to the Dublin PTG.

So I don't think anyone views it as "their party" -- just as an event
where we all get stuff done.

-- 
Thierry

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Chris Morgan]

+1

Greetings from Reykjavik

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 8:58 PM, <arkady.kanev...@dell.com> 
> <arkady.kanev...@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
>  
> From: Erik McCormick [mailto:emccorm...@cirrusseven.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 3:57 PM
> To: Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com>
> Cc: openstack-operators <openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User 
> Feedback
>  
> I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate on 
> us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's basically 
> what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so. 
>  
> Cheers 
> Erik
>  
> PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,  etc.
>  
> On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman" <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.
>  
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>  
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur <ji...@openstack.org> wrote:
> Hi all -
> 
> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation of 
> the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to alert 
> our events team.
> 
> Thanks!
> Jimmy
> 
> 
> Chris Morgan
> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
> Hello Everyone,
>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There was 
> an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the foundation 
> folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put forward as a sample 
> definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it looks like we could 
> have a really great combined event in September. 
>  
> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the 
> meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to 
> declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT 
> please speak up by end of week, this week.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Jonathan Proulx
> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
> :try.
> :
> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
> :meet and offline discussion. :)
> 
> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
> PTG/OpsMidcycle
> 
> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
> 
> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
> conceptual "what" discussions.
> 
> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
> to colocation.
> 
> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
> events as cheap and simple as possible.
> 
> -Jon
> 
> :
> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2
> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
> :>
> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving
> :> this a try.
> :>
> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle <mvanw...@rackspace.com>
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Hey folks,
> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> :>> latest below. From a User Committe

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Arkady.Kanevsky]

+1

From: Erik McCormick [mailto:emccorm...@cirrusseven.com]
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 3:57 PM
To: Melvin Hillsman <mrhills...@gmail.com>
Cc: openstack-operators <openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User 
Feedback

I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate on us 
for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's basically what 
we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so.

Cheers
Erik

PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,  etc.

On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman" 
<mrhills...@gmail.com<mailto:mrhills...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
<mrhills...@gmail.com<mailto:mrhills...@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
<ji...@openstack.org<mailto:ji...@openstack.org>> wrote:
Hi all -

I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation of 
the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to alert our 
events team.

Thanks!
Jimmy


Chris Morgan<mailto:mihali...@gmail.com>
March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
Hello Everyone,
  This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There was an 
informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the foundation folk 
and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put forward as a sample 
definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it looks like we could have 
a really great combined event in September.

I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the 
meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to 
declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT 
please speak up by end of week, this week.

Thanks!

Chris




--
Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com<mailto:mihali...@gmail.com>>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Jonathan Proulx<mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu>
March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
:I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
:Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
:try.
:
:Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
:meet and offline discussion. :)

Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
PTG/OpsMidcycle

PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.

Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
conceptual "what" discussions.

So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
to colocation.

We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
events as cheap and simple as possible.

-Jon

:
:On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
<mrhills...@gmail.com><mailto:mrhills...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
:> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2
:> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
:> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
:>
:> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving
:> this a try.
:>
:> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 
<mvanw...@rackspace.com><mailto:mvanw...@rackspace.com>
:> wrote:
:>
:>> Hey folks,
:>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
:>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
:>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
:>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but
:>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I
:>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
:>>
:>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
:>> software should do. Keeping

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Erik McCormick]

I'm a +1 too as long as the devs at large are cool with it and won't hate
on us for crashing their party. I also +1 the proposed format.  It's
basically what we're discussed in Tokyo. Make it so.

Cheers
Erik

PS. Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks. Vacation,  kids,
etc.

On Apr 2, 2018 4:18 PM, "Melvin Hillsman"  wrote:

Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all -
>>
>> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the
>> colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we
>> have to alert our events team.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jimmy
>>
>> Chris Morgan 
>> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
>> Hello Everyone,
>>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There
>> was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the
>> foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put
>> forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it
>> looks like we could have a really great combined event in September.
>>
>> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In
>> the meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like
>> to declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU
>> OBJECT please speak up by end of week, this week.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Morgan 
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> Jonathan Proulx 
>> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
>> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
>> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
>> :try.
>> :
>> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
>> :meet and offline discussion. :)
>>
>> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
>> PTG/OpsMidcycle
>>
>> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
>> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
>> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
>> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
>> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
>> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
>>
>> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
>> conceptual "what" discussions.
>>
>> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
>> to colocation.
>>
>> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
>> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
>> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
>> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
>> events as cheap and simple as possible.
>>
>> -Jon
>>
>> :
>> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
>>  wrote:
>> :
>> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
>> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my
>> +2
>> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and
>> agree
>> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
>> :>
>> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least
>> giving
>> :> this a try.
>> :>
>> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle
>>  
>> :> wrote:
>> :>
>> :>> Hey folks,
>> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
>> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
>> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of
>> the
>> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location,
>> but
>> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as
>> I
>> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching
>> points.
>> :>>
>> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
>> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior,
>> feature
>> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
>> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions,
>> that
>> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW
>> the
>> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the
>> focus
>> :>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Amy Marrich]

+2, I think all concerns have been addressed

Amy (spotz)

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Sean McGinnis  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Melvin Hillsman wrote:
> > Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.
> >
>
> I agree, I think the feedback I've heard so far is that all parties are
> willing
> to give this a shot. I think we should go ahead.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all -
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the
> > >> colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible
> as we
> > >> have to alert our events team.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >> Jimmy
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Sean McGinnis]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Melvin Hillsman wrote:
> Unless anyone has any objections I believe we have quorum Jimmy.
> 

I agree, I think the feedback I've heard so far is that all parties are willing
to give this a shot. I think we should go ahead.

> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Melvin Hillsman 
> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all -
> >>
> >> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the
> >> colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we
> >> have to alert our events team.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Jimmy

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Melvin Hillsman]

+1

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Jimmy McArthur  wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the colocation
> of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as we have to
> alert our events team.
>
> Thanks!
> Jimmy
>
> Chris Morgan 
> March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
> Hello Everyone,
>   This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There
> was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the
> foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put
> forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it
> looks like we could have a really great combined event in September.
>
> I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the
> meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to
> declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT
> please speak up by end of week, this week.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Morgan 
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> Jonathan Proulx 
> March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
> :try.
> :
> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
> :meet and offline discussion. :)
>
> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
> PTG/OpsMidcycle
>
> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
>
> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
> conceptual "what" discussions.
>
> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
> to colocation.
>
> We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
> harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
> this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
> events as cheap and simple as possible.
>
> -Jon
>
> :
> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
>  wrote:
> :
> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my
> +2
> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
> :>
> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least
> giving
> :> this a try.
> :>
> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle
>  
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Hey folks,
> :>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
> :>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> :>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location,
> but
> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out as I
> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
> :>>
> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
> :>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior,
> feature
> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that
> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are HOW
> the
> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the
> focus
> :>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
> :>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know
> :>> several who have found it valuable.
> :>>
> :>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
> :>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were
> occurring.
> :>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's
> purpose
> :>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in
> this
> :>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
> :>> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they have
> :>> been good vehicles 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Jimmy McArthur]

Hi all -

I'd like to check in to see if we've come to a consensus on the 
colocation of the Ops Meetup.  Please let us know as soon as possible as 
we have to alert our events team.


Thanks!
Jimmy


Chris Morgan 
March 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM
Hello Everyone,
  This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. 
There was an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of 
the foundation folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal 
put forward as a sample definition of the combined event - I certainly 
do, it looks like we could have a really great combined event in 
September.


I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In 
the meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd 
like to declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF 
YOU OBJECT please speak up by end of week, this week.


Thanks!

Chris




--
Chris Morgan >
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Jonathan Proulx 
March 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
:I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
:Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
:try.
:
:Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
:meet and offline discussion. :)

Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
PTG/OpsMidcycle

PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.

Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
conceptual "what" discussions.

So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
to colocation.

We do need to watch out for downsides. The concerns around colocation
seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
harder to organize. If we try we will find out if there is merit to
this concern, but (IMO) it is important to keep both of the
events as cheap and simple as possible.

-Jon

:
:On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman  
wrote:

:
:> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
:> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is 
my +2
:> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and 
agree

:> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
:>
:> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least 
giving

:> this a try.
:>
:> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 


:> wrote:
:>
:>> Hey folks,
:>> Great discussion! There are number of points to comment on going back
:>> through the last few emails. I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
:>> latest below. From a User Committee perspective (and as a member 
of the
:>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of 
co-location, but
:>> have come to see a lot of value in it. I'll point some of that out 
as I
:>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching 
points.

:>>
:>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
:>> software should do. Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, 
feature

:>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
:>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, 
that
:>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc. These are 
HOW the
:>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of 
the focus

:>> of the PTG. I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
:>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I 
know

:>> several who have found it valuable.
:>>
:>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
:>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were 
occurring.
:>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period. While it's 
purpose
:>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team 
(in this

:>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
:>> discuss common issues, topics, etc. I'll also point out, that they 
have
:>> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks 
integrated. For

:>> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just
:>> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold.
:>>
:>> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:
:>>
:>> 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Chris Morgan]

Hello Everyone,
  This proposal looks to have very good backing in the community. There was
an informal IRC meeting today with the meetups team, some of the foundation
folk and others and everyone seems to like a proposal put forward as a
sample definition of the combined event - I certainly do, it looks like we
could have a really great combined event in September.

I volunteered to share that a bit later today with some other info. In the
meanwhile if you have a viewpoint please do chime in here as we'd like to
declare this agreed by the community ASAP, so in particular IF YOU OBJECT
please speak up by end of week, this week.

Thanks!

Chris

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Jonathan Proulx  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> :I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
> :Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
> :try.
> :
> :Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
> :meet and offline discussion. :)
>
> Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
> PTG/OpsMidcycle
>
> PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
> work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
> colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
> this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
> not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
> or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.
>
> Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
> conceptual  "what" discussions.
>
> So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
> to colocation.
>
> We do need to watch out for downsides.  The concerns around colocation
> seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
> harder to organize.  If we try we will find out if there is merit to
> this concern, but (IMO) it is  important to keep both of the
> events as cheap and simple as possible.
>
> -Jon
>
> :
> :On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman 
> wrote:
> :
> :> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
> :> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my
> +2
> :> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
> :> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
> :>
> :> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least
> giving
> :> this a try.
> :>
> :> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle <
> mvanw...@rackspace.com>
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Hey folks,
> :>> Great discussion!  There are number of points to comment on going back
> :>> through the last few emails.  I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> :>> latest below.  From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of
> the
> :>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location,
> but
> :>> have come to see a lot of value in it.  I'll point some of that out as
> I
> :>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
> :>>
> :>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
> :>> software should do.  Keeping the discussions focused on behavior,
> feature
> :>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
> :>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that
> :>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc.  These are HOW
> the
> :>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the
> focus
> :>> of the PTG.  I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
> :>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know
> :>> several who have found it valuable.
> :>>
> :>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
> :>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were
> occurring.
> :>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period.  While it's
> purpose
> :>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in
> this
> :>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
> :>> discuss common issues, topics, etc.  I'll also point out, that they
> have
> :>> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated.
> For
> :>> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just
> :>> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold.
> :>>
> :>> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:
> :>>
> :>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> :>> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +:
> :>> >>
> :>> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have
> the
> :>> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found
> with
> :>> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it
> tends
> :>> >> to 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Jonathan Proulx]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:02:48PM -0700, Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
:I support the ideas to try colocating the next Ops Midcycle and PTG.
:Although scheduling could be a potential challenge but it worth give it a
:try.
:
:Also having an joint social event in the evening can also help Dev/Ops to
:meet and offline discussion. :)

Agreeing stongly with Matt and Melvin's comments about Forum -vs-
PTG/OpsMidcycle

PTG/OpsMidcycle (as I see them) are about focusing inside teams to get
work done ("how" is a a good one word I think). The advantage of
colocation is for cross team questions like "we're thinking of doing
this thing this way, does this have any impacts on your work my might
not have considered", can get a quick respose in the hall, at lunch,
or over beers as Yih Leong suggests.

Forum has become about coming to gather across groups for more
conceptual  "what" discussions.

So I also thing they are very distinct and I do see potential benefits
to colocation.

We do need to watch out for downsides.  The concerns around colocation
seemed mostly about larger events costing more and being generally
harder to organize.  If we try we will find out if there is merit to
this concern, but (IMO) it is  important to keep both of the
events as cheap and simple as possible.

-Jon

:
:On Thursday, March 22, 2018, Melvin Hillsman  wrote:
:
:> Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
:> base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2
:> since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
:> with them here as I have in individual discussions.
:>
:> If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving
:> this a try.
:>
:> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 
:> wrote:
:>
:>> Hey folks,
:>> Great discussion!  There are number of points to comment on going back
:>> through the last few emails.  I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
:>> latest below.  From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
:>> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but
:>> have come to see a lot of value in it.  I'll point some of that out as I
:>> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
:>>
:>> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
:>> software should do.  Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature
:>> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
:>> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that
:>> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc.  These are HOW the
:>> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the focus
:>> of the PTG.  I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
:>> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know
:>> several who have found it valuable.
:>>
:>> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
:>> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were occurring.
:>> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period.  While it's purpose
:>> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in this
:>> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
:>> discuss common issues, topics, etc.  I'll also point out, that they have
:>> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated.  For
:>> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just
:>> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold.
:>>
:>> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:
:>>
:>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
:>> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +:
:>> >>
:>> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the
:>> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with
:>> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends
:>> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the
:>> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time?
:>> >
:>> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor
:>> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but
:>> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the
:>> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle
:>> > would be convenient, for sure.)
:>> >
:>> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems
:>> > key.
:>>
:>> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that
:>> one
:>> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group
:>> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue
:>> for
:>> engaging with everyone in our community.
:>>
:>> The PTG format is really organized 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Melvin Hillsman]

Thierry and Matt both hit the nail on the head in terms of the very
base/purpose/point of the Forum, PTG, and Ops Midcycles and here is my +2
since I have spoke with both and others outside of this thread and agree
with them here as I have in individual discussions.

If nothing else I agree with Jimmy's original statement of at least giving
this a try.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Matt Van Winkle 
wrote:

> Hey folks,
> Great discussion!  There are number of points to comment on going back
> through the last few emails.  I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's
> latest below.  From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the
> Ops Meetup planning team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but
> have come to see a lot of value in it.  I'll point some of that out as I
> respond to specific comments, but first a couple of overarching points.
>
> In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the
> software should do.  Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature
> and function has made it much easier for an operator to participate
> effectively in the conversation versus the older, design sessions, that
> focused largely on blueprints, coding approaches, etc.  These are HOW the
> developers should make things work and, now, are a large part of the focus
> of the PTG.  I realize it's not that cut and dry, but current model has
> allowed for this division of "what" and "how" in many areas, and I know
> several who have found it valuable.
>
> The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective
> combining of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were occurring.
> The current Ops mid-cycle was born in that same period.  While it's purpose
> was a little different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in this
> case operators) together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to
> discuss common issues, topics, etc.  I'll also point out, that they have
> been good vehicles in the Ops community to get new folks integrated.  For
> the purpose of this discussion, though, one could argue this is just
> bringing the last mid-cycle event in to the fold.
>
> On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:
>
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +:
> >>
> >> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the
> >> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with
> >> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends
> >> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the
> >> forum to only a subset of the summit time?
> >
> > I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor
> > event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but
> > it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the
> > Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle
> > would be convenient, for sure.)
> >
> > Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems
> > key.
>
> Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that one
> is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group
> spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue
> for
> engaging with everyone in our community.
>
> The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their
> focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work
> items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are
> co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite
> other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of
> expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our
> geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and get
> work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to maximize
> the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who
> can't
> relate to any specific work group.
>
> Exactly.  I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but
> it's very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG.  We need this
> time for the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum sessions
> (or earlier input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version.  While some
> folks could drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle is just
> that - leveraging venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support across one,
> larger event - it should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the sessions
> Theirry describes above
>
> The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific
> discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum
> sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are
> defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Matt Van Winkle]

Hey folks,
Great discussion!  There are number of points to comment on going back through 
the last few emails.  I'll try to do so in line with Theirry's latest below.  
From a User Committee perspective (and as a member of the Ops Meetup planning 
team), I am a convert to the idea of co-location, but have come to see a lot of 
value in it.  I'll point some of that out as I respond to specific comments, 
but first a couple of overarching points.

In the current model, the Forum sessions are very much about WHAT the software 
should do.  Keeping the discussions focused on behavior, feature and function 
has made it much easier for an operator to participate effectively in the 
conversation versus the older, design sessions, that focused largely on 
blueprints, coding approaches, etc.  These are HOW the developers should make 
things work and, now, are a large part of the focus of the PTG.  I realize it's 
not that cut and dry, but current model has allowed for this division of "what" 
and "how" in many areas, and I know several who have found it valuable.

The other contextual thing to remember is the PTG was the effective combining 
of all the various team mid-cycle meetups that were occurring.  The current Ops 
mid-cycle was born in that same period.  While it's purpose was a little 
different, it's spirit is the same - gather a team (in this case operators) 
together outside the hustle and bustle of a summit to discuss common issues, 
topics, etc.  I'll also point out, that they have been good vehicles in the Ops 
community to get new folks integrated.  For the purpose of this discussion, 
though, one could argue this is just bringing the last mid-cycle event in to 
the fold. 

On 3/21/18, 4:40 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2018-03-20 19:48:31 +:
>>
>> Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the
>> OpenStack Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with
>> the forum running all week throughout the summit is that it tends
>> to draw audience away from other talks so maybe we could reduce the
>> forum to only a subset of the summit time?
> 
> I support the idea of having all contributors attend the contributor
> event (and rebranding it to reflect that change in emphasis), but
> it's not quite clear how the result would be different from the
> Forum. Is it just the scheduling? (Having input earlier in the cycle
> would be convenient, for sure.)
> 
> Thierry's comment about "work sessions" earlier in the thread seems
> key.

Right, I think the key difference between the PTG and Forum is that one
is a work event for engaged contributors that are part of a group
spending time on making OpenStack better, while the other is a venue for
engaging with everyone in our community.

The PTG format is really organized around work groups (whatever their
focus is), enabling them to set their short-term goals, assign work
items and bootstrap the work. The fact that all those work groups are
co-located make it easy to participate in multiple groups, or invite
other people to join the discussion where it touches their area of
expertise, but it's still mostly a venue for our
geographically-distributed workgroups to get together in person and get
work done. That's why the agenda is so flexible at the PTG, to maximize
the productivity of attendees, even if that can confuse people who can't
relate to any specific work group.

Exactly.  I know I way over simplified it as working on the "how", but it's 
very important to honor this aspect of the current PTG.  We need this time for 
the devs and teams to take output from the previous forum sessions (or earlier 
input) and turn it into plans for the N+1 version.  While some folks could 
drift between sessions, co-locating the Ops mid-cycle is just that - leveraging 
venue, sponsors, and Foundation staff support across one, larger event - it 
should NOT disrupt the current spirit of the sessions Theirry describes above

The Forum format, on the other hand, is organized around specific
discussion topics where you want to maximize feedback and input. Forum
sessions are not attached to a specific workgroup or team, they are
defined by their topic. They are well-advertised on the event schedule,
and happen at a precise time. It takes advantage of the thousands of
attendees being present to get the most relevant feedback possible. It
allows to engage beyond the work groups, to people who can't spend much
time getting more engaged and contribute back.

Agreed.  Again, I over simplified as the "what", but these sessions are so 
valuable as the bring dev and ops in a room and focus on what the software 
needs to do or the impact (positive or negative) that planned behaviors might 
have on Operators and 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Tim Bell]

Interesting debate, thanks for raising it.

Would we still need the same style of summit forum if we have the OpenStack 
Community Working Gathering? One thing I have found with the forum running all 
week throughout the summit is that it tends to draw audience away from other 
talks so maybe we could reduce the forum to only a subset of the summit time?

Would increasing the attendance level also lead to an increased entrance price 
compared to the PTG? I seem to remember the Ops meetup entrance price was 
nominal.

Getting the input from the OpenStack days would be very useful to get coverage. 
I've found them to be well organised community events with good balance between 
local companies and interesting talks.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 at 19:15
To: openstack-operators <openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User 
Feedback

On 2018-03-20 10:37:21 -0500 (-0500), Jimmy McArthur wrote:
[...]
> We have an opportunity to co-locate the Ops Meetup at the PTG.
[...]

To echo what others have said so far, I'm wholeheartedly in favor of
this idea.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of the seemingly artificial schism in
our community between contributors who mostly write software and
contributors who mostly run software. There's not enough crossover
with the existing event silos, and I'd love to see increasing
opportunities for those of us who mostly write software to
collaborate more closely with those who mostly run software (and
vice versa). Having dedicated events and separate named identities
for these overlapping groups of people serves only to further divide
us, rather than bring us together where we can better draw on our
collective strengths to make something great.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2018-03-20 10:37:21 -0500 (-0500), Jimmy McArthur wrote:
[...]
> We have an opportunity to co-locate the Ops Meetup at the PTG.
[...]

To echo what others have said so far, I'm wholeheartedly in favor of
this idea.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of the seemingly artificial schism in
our community between contributors who mostly write software and
contributors who mostly run software. There's not enough crossover
with the existing event silos, and I'd love to see increasing
opportunities for those of us who mostly write software to
collaborate more closely with those who mostly run software (and
vice versa). Having dedicated events and separate named identities
for these overlapping groups of people serves only to further divide
us, rather than bring us together where we can better draw on our
collective strengths to make something great.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Jimmy McArthur]

Posting this from Dave Medberry (and with permission):

While no longer technically an operator I'm 100% for colocating PTG and 
Ops Meetups. I know some folks don't want to feel like tagalongs but I 
think you are addressing that (and making a specific Ops invite and 
considering a name change.)


So that's my $0.02 worth

Goals for Ops Meetups:
* Community and F2F time with other Ops
* Shared Commiseration and potentially action items if there is such 
shared commiseration
* Wins (how you as an op are winning at operations). Ie., best 
practices, tips & tricks, etc.
* Updates/ino about key projects. We've had Nova cores/ptls, Swift 
cores/ptls, etc talk at various Ops Meetups. I'd like to see this 
continue. Ie, what's in the just released thing we need to worry about 
(or being released as we are there.) What was in the last release that 
was a gotcha that as we move forward with deployment we need to worry 
about (over and above what's on the relnotes.)


I've sent this to you but feel free to share broadly.

-dave

David Medberry
OpenStack DevOps
& Cloud Manageability



Jimmy McArthur 
March 20, 2018 at 10:37 AM
Hi there!

As discussions are underway for planning the Ops meetup during the 
second half of the year, I wanted to reach out with some thoughts and 
to see how the Foundation staff can help. We are committed to 
supporting the Ops community and want you all to know that it 
continues to be a major priority for the Foundation.


UC Update
We've been meeting regularly with the User Committee to help establish 
goals for the Committee as well as Operators and End Users.  There are 
three critical things that we identified as immediate areas of concern:


  * How to involve operators, end users, and app-devs that are not in
the normal cycle of communications within the community (IRC, MLs,
Summit, Forum, etc..)
  * Ensuring a productive communication loop between the User and Dev
communities so feedback from OS Days, local user groups, and Ops
Meetups are communicated and brought to the Forum in a way that
allows developers to address concerns in future  release cycles.
  * Removing perceived barriers and building relationships between
User and Dev communities


General Feedback from Ops Meetups
We're starting to lay the groundwork to address some of these 
concerns, but we need feedback from the Ops community before moving 
forward.  Some of the feedback we've gotten from operators is they 
don't see their needs being met during release cycles. We're hoping 
you can help us answer a few questions and see if we can figure out a 
way to improve:


  * What are the short and long term goals for Ops Meetups?
  * Do you feel like the existing format is helping to achieve those
goals?
  * How can the OpenStack Foundation staff work to support your efforts?


Ops 2H 2018 Meetup
In addition to those questions, we'd like to pitch an option for you 
for the next Ops Meetup.  The upcoming PTG is the week of September 10 
in North America. We have an opportunity to co-locate the Ops Meetup 
at the PTG.


If the Ops community was interested in this, we would have separate 
space with your own work sessions and separate branding for the Ops 
attendees. This would also involve updating the language on the 
OpenStack website and potentially renaming the PTG to something more 
inclusive to both groups.


Evenings at a co-located event would allow for relationship building 
and problem sharing. We're pitching this as a way to bring these two 
groups together, while still allowing them to have distinct productive 
events.  That said, we're in no way trying to force the situation. If, 
as a group, you decide you'd prefer to continue managing these events 
on your own, we're happy to support that in whatever way we can.


If you have an opinion one way or the other, please weigh in here: 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/OpsMeetup2H2018


Events and Communication
Regardless of the location of the event the second half of this year, 
we would like to continue refining the feedback loop and determine how 
ambassadors, user group leaders and OpenStack Days play into the mix. 
We plan to have Forum sessions in Vancouver and Berlin and encourage 
all Users to attend to discuss ways that we can provide more 
meaningful discussion between Ops and Devs. Generally, we’ve been 
discussing a communication architecture around events:


  * OpenStack Days - Having an Ops track at OpenStack Days in an
effort to solicit feedback and open discussion from operators,
especially those who might normally not attend other events. The
goal here is to generate common operator issues and features, and
also share best practices. The Public Cloud WG has been
successfully pioneering this approach at several OpenStack Days
last year.
  * Ops Meetup - Take the content generated by all of the OpenStack
Days Ops tracks and use them to narrow down how the Ops and 

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Amy Marrich]

I had jokingly called it the 'OpenStack Community Working Midcycle' during
the UC meeting because I always wondered if the Gathering part of PTG had
made it hard for people to get support to go. But I really do like the word
contributor mentioned here and I think we should stress that in the
re-naming as Operators and their feedback are a very large contribution.

Amy (spotz)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Jimmy McArthur wrote:
> > [...]
> > We've been meeting regularly with the User Committee to help establish
> > goals for the Committee as well as Operators and End Users.  There are
> > three critical things that we identified as immediate areas of concern:
> >
> >   * How to involve operators, end users, and app-devs that are not in
> > the normal cycle of communications within the community (IRC, MLs,
> > Summit, Forum, etc..)
> >   * Ensuring a productive communication loop between the User and Dev
> > communities so feedback from OS Days, local user groups, and Ops
> > Meetups are communicated and brought to the Forum in a way that
> > allows developers to address concerns in future  release cycles.
> >   * Removing perceived barriers and building relationships between User
> > and Dev communities
>
> ++ Great list!
>
> > [...]
> > Ops 2H 2018 Meetup
> > In addition to those questions, we'd like to pitch an option for you for
> > the next Ops Meetup.  The upcoming PTG is the week of September 10 in
> > North America. We have an opportunity to co-locate the Ops Meetup at the
> > PTG.
>
> I think it's generally a good idea, especially for work sessions. The
> PTG already turned into an event where any group of contributors,
> whatever their focus is, can meet in person and do some work. We had the
> Public Cloud WG in Dublin and I feel like they had very productive
> discussions !
>
> > If the Ops community was interested in this, we would have separate
> > space with your own work sessions and separate branding for the Ops
> > attendees. This would also involve updating the language on the
> > OpenStack website and potentially renaming the PTG to something more
> > inclusive to both groups.
>
> Personally, I'm not a big fan of separate branding (or "co-location").
> If the "PTG" name is seen as too developer-centric, I'd rather change
> the event name (and clearly make it a work event for anyone contributing
> to OpenStack, whatever the shape of their group). Otherwise we just
> perpetuate the artificial separation by calling it an ops event
> co-located with a dev event. It's really a single "contributor" event.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[David Medberry]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

>
> Personally, I'm not a big fan of separate branding (or "co-location").
> If the "PTG" name is seen as too developer-centric, I'd rather change
> the event name (and clearly make it a work event for anyone contributing
> to OpenStack, whatever the shape of their group). Otherwise we just
> perpetuate the artificial separation by calling it an ops event
> co-located with a dev event. It's really a single "contributor" event.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>

Amen. What Thierry says. I wasn't in Dublin but I really got the feel from
twitter, blogs, and emails it was more than just the PTG going on. Let's
acknowledge that with a rename and have the Ops join in not as a "wannabes"
but as Community members in full.

Thanks all to suggesting/offering to do this. MAKE IT SO.

-dave
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Re: [Openstack-operators] Ops Meetup, Co-Location options, and User Feedback

[Thierry Carrez]

Jimmy McArthur wrote:
> [...]
> We've been meeting regularly with the User Committee to help establish
> goals for the Committee as well as Operators and End Users.  There are
> three critical things that we identified as immediate areas of concern:
> 
>   * How to involve operators, end users, and app-devs that are not in
> the normal cycle of communications within the community (IRC, MLs,
> Summit, Forum, etc..)
>   * Ensuring a productive communication loop between the User and Dev
> communities so feedback from OS Days, local user groups, and Ops
> Meetups are communicated and brought to the Forum in a way that
> allows developers to address concerns in future  release cycles.
>   * Removing perceived barriers and building relationships between User
> and Dev communities

++ Great list!

> [...]
> Ops 2H 2018 Meetup
> In addition to those questions, we'd like to pitch an option for you for
> the next Ops Meetup.  The upcoming PTG is the week of September 10 in
> North America. We have an opportunity to co-locate the Ops Meetup at the
> PTG.

I think it's generally a good idea, especially for work sessions. The
PTG already turned into an event where any group of contributors,
whatever their focus is, can meet in person and do some work. We had the
Public Cloud WG in Dublin and I feel like they had very productive
discussions !

> If the Ops community was interested in this, we would have separate
> space with your own work sessions and separate branding for the Ops
> attendees. This would also involve updating the language on the
> OpenStack website and potentially renaming the PTG to something more
> inclusive to both groups.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of separate branding (or "co-location").
If the "PTG" name is seen as too developer-centric, I'd rather change
the event name (and clearly make it a work event for anyone contributing
to OpenStack, whatever the shape of their group). Otherwise we just
perpetuate the artificial separation by calling it an ops event
co-located with a dev event. It's really a single "contributor" event.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators