Open Stack

Hi Lauren,
My sense from the Swift team is that the Design Summit has been very
productive during the integrated Summit. As noted- they even do an
'off-cycle' even to continue the discussion between the events.

While the event has been parallelized, that's just a reflection of the
mission that OpenStack is achieving!

I would personally be remiss to separate the events and reduce the
interaction possibilities between operators, users with the developers.

-Joe
--
President, Chief Product Officer
http://swiftstack.com
+1-415-999-0282

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave, Frank,
>
> Thanks for providing feedback, it’s definitely welcome. No decision has
> been made. I completely agree that bringing together developers, users and
> the ecosystem to one event creates a very unique experience and productive
> environment.
>
> The proposal was in response to a thread on the dev mailing list that has
> been percolating for some time. We are planning to discuss it in the board
> meeting, which is starting now. Based on initial response and feedback from
> the Board, we will firm up our thoughts and will definitely be seeking more
> feedback. IF we decide to make any changes, they would not go into effect
> until 2017 or beyond.
>
> One thing to note is that the current proposal would not pull out the
> Design Summit in its entirety. With the growing community and increasing
> number of projects, the Design Summit has become very busy and highly
> parallelized. The proposal would keep the more strategic and user-centric
> “why” discussions at the Summit and direct the more tactical “how”
> implementation discussions into the separate event. In practice, this would
> be more like 4 parallel tracks in the design summit rather than 12-16, so
> more developers can participate in cross project and higher level
> discussions.
>
> There are many details that would need to be discussed and decided, but at
> a high level we would still expect a good number of contributors to attend
> the main event, as well as discussions to happen around release planning
> and the future of the project. Ideally a scaled back design summit would
> also give contributors more freedom to present and participate in the
> conference.
>
> Again, all feedback is welcome. We’ve received very positive feedback on
> the Summit to date and do not take any changes lightly. We are just looking
> to best serve and balance the needs of all of our constituents as the
> Summit and community continues to grow.
>
> Best,
> Lauren
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Dave Neary <dneary at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Considering the source, this looks like it is very seriously being
> > considered. I would go so far as to say it sounds like it is already in
> > planning.
> >
> > The only down-side I can see is that some members of the community would
> > now be compelled to travel to 2 events per release cycle. But for most
> > participants, this proposal will convert the main Summit into an
> > optional event for developers, and a requirement for product, bizdev,
> > sales, marketing teams.
> >
> > I await the outcome of the discussion - I will forward on the thread to
> > our product and marketing teams in here to see what they think (given
> > MWC this week, response time from them may be slow).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave.
> >
> >
> > On 02/23/2016 01:01 PM, Frank  Days wrote:
> >> The following thread has been making the rounds in the Dev list and I
> >> wanted to reshare it here on the marketing list.
> >>
> >> As a Summit sponsor, we have been very happy with the existing format
> >> and have concerns about the potential impact splitting Summit into two
> >> events.
> >>
> >> Anyone know if this a just straw man or something that is getting
> >> serious consideration?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Frank Days
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank Days | VP, Marketing
> >>
> >> Direct: +1.978.707.8010 ext. 1017
> >> frank.days at tesora.com <mailto:frank.days at tesora.com> | @tangyslice
> >> | Skype: fmdays
> >> 125 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400, Cambridge, MA 02140
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>> *Subject: **FW: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the
> >>> design summit*
> >>> *Date: *February 22, 2016 at 10:27:39 AM EST
> >>> *To: *"Frank Days" <frank.days at tesora.com <mailto:
> frank.days at tesora.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2016-02-22, 10:14 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org
> >>> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> TL;DR: Let's split the events, starting after Barcelona.
> >>>>
> >>>> Long long version:
> >>>>
> >>>> In a global and virtual community, high-bandwidth face-to-face time is
> >>>> essential. This is why we made the OpenStack Design Summits an
> integral
> >>>> part of our processes from day 0. Those were set at the beginning of
> >>>> each of our development cycles to help set goals and organize the work
> >>>> for the upcoming 6 months. At the same time and in the same location,
> a
> >>>> more traditional conference was happening, ensuring a lot of
> interaction
> >>>> between the upstream (producers) and downstream (consumers) parts of
> our
> >>>> community.
> >>>>
> >>>> This setup, however, has a number of issues. For developers first: the
> >>>> "conference" part of the common event got bigger and bigger and it is
> >>>> difficult to focus on upstream work (and socially bond with your
> >>>> teammates) with so much other commitments and distractions. The result
> >>>> is that our design summits are a lot less productive than they used to
> >>>> be, and we organize other events ("midcycles") to fill our focus and
> >>>> small-group socialization needs. The timing of the event (a couple of
> >>>> weeks after the previous cycle release) is also suboptimal: it is way
> >>>> too late to gather any sort of requirements and priorities for the
> >>>> already-started new cycle, and also too late to do any sort of work
> >>>> planning (the cycle work started almost 2 months ago).
> >>>>
> >>>> But it's not just suboptimal for developers. For contributing
> companies,
> >>>> flying all their developers to expensive cities and conference hotels
> so
> >>>> that they can attend the Design Summit is pretty costly, and the goals
> >>>> of the summit location (reaching out to users everywhere) do not
> >>>> necessarily align with the goals of the Design Summit location
> (minimize
> >>>> and balance travel costs for existing contributors). For the companies
> >>>> that build products and distributions on top of the recent release,
> the
> >>>> timing of the common event is not so great either: it is difficult to
> >>>> show off products based on the recent release only two weeks after
> it's
> >>>> out. The summit date is also too early to leverage all the users
> >>>> attending the summit to gather feedback on the recent release -- not a
> >>>> lot of people would have tried upgrades by summit time. Finally a
> common
> >>>> event is also suboptimal for the events organization : finding venues
> >>>> that can accommodate both events is becoming increasingly complicated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Time is ripe for a change. After Tokyo, we at the Foundation have been
> >>>> considering options on how to evolve our events to solve those issues.
> >>>> This proposal is the result of this work. There is no perfect solution
> >>>> here (and this is still work in progress), but we are confident that
> >>>> this strawman solution solves a lot more problems than it creates, and
> >>>> balances the needs of the various constituents of our community.
> >>>>
> >>>> The idea would be to split the events. The first event would be for
> >>>> upstream technical contributors to OpenStack. It would be held in a
> >>>> simpler, scaled-back setting that would let all OpenStack project
> teams
> >>>> meet in separate rooms, but in a co-located event that would make it
> >>>> easy to have ad-hoc cross-project discussions. It would happen closer
> to
> >>>> the centers of mass of contributors, in less-expensive locations.
> >>>>
> >>>> More importantly, it would be set to happen a couple of weeks /before/
> >>>> the previous cycle release. There is a lot of overlap between cycles.
> >>>> Work on a cycle starts at the previous cycle feature freeze, while
> there
> >>>> is still 5 weeks to go. Most people switch full-time to the next cycle
> >>>> by RC1. Organizing the event just after that time lets us organize the
> >>>> work and kickstart the new cycle at the best moment. It also allows us
> >>>> to use our time together to quickly address last-minute
> release-critical
> >>>> issues if such issues arise.
> >>>>
> >>>> The second event would be the main downstream business conference,
> with
> >>>> high-end keynotes, marketplace and breakout sessions. It would be
> >>>> organized two or three months /after/ the release, to give time for
> all
> >>>> downstream users to deploy and build products on top of the release.
> It
> >>>> would be the best time to gather feedback on the recent release, and
> >>>> also the best time to have strategic discussions: start gathering
> >>>> requirements for the next cycle, leveraging the very large
> cross-section
> >>>> of all our community that attends the event.
> >>>>
> >>>> To that effect, we'd still hold a number of strategic planning
> sessions
> >>>> at the main event to gather feedback, determine requirements and
> define
> >>>> overall cross-project themes, but the session format would not require
> >>>> all project contributors to attend. A subset of contributors who would
> >>>> like to participate in this sessions can collect and relay feedback to
> >>>> other team members for implementation (similar to the Ops midcycle).
> >>>> Other contributors will also want to get more involved in the
> >>>> conference, whether that's giving presentations or hearing user
> stories.
> >>>>
> >>>> The split should ideally reduce the needs to organize separate
> in-person
> >>>> mid-cycle events. If some are still needed, the main conference venue
> >>>> and time could easily be used to provide space for such midcycle
> events
> >>>> (given that it would end up happening in the middle of the cycle).
> >>>>
> >>>> In practice, the split means that we need to stagger the events and
> >>>> cycles. We have a long time between Barcelona and the Q1 Summit in the
> >>>> US, so the idea would be to use that long period to insert a smaller
> >>>> cycle (Ocata) with a release early March, 2017 and have the first
> >>>> specific contributors event at the start of the P cycle, mid-February,
> >>>> 2017. See the attached PDF for a visual explanation. With the
> >>>> already-planned events in 2016 and 2017 it is the earliest we can make
> >>>> the transition. We'd have a last, scaled-down design summit in
> Barcelona
> >>>> to plan the shorter cycle.
> >>>>
> >>>> With that setup, we hope that we can restore the productivity and
> focus
> >>>> of the face-to-face contributors gathering, reduce the need to have
> >>>> midcycle events for social bonding and team building, keep the cost of
> >>>> getting all contributors together once per cycle under control,
> maintain
> >>>> the feedback loops with all the constituents of the OpenStack
> community
> >>>> at the main event, and better align the timing of each event with the
> >>>> reality of the release cycles.
> >>>>
> >>>> NB: You will note that I did not name the separated event "Design
> >>>> Summit" -- that is because Design will now be split into
> >>>> feedback/requirements gathering (the "why" at the main event) and
> >>>> execution planning and kickstarting (the "how" at the
> >>>> contributors-oriented event), so that name doesn't feel right anymore.
> >>>> We can bikeshed on the name for the new event later :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments, thoughts ?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Marketing mailing list
> >> Marketing at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
> > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marketing mailing list
> > Marketing at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/marketing/attachments/20160223/3f726c50/attachment-0001.html>