Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] Lithium Cycle Hackfests

Thomas Nadeau

On Nov 20, 2014:10:01 AM, at 10:01 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

So, I'm deeply receptive to pretty much everything that's been said:
1.) having people in the same room occasionally is good
2.) requiring people to be in the same room is bad, limits scale, hurts diversity, etc.
3.) having touch points where the project comes together and is more interactive during the release makes sense

My question is, can we agree on a few things?
* How often is reasonable to meet in person?
    * I think we can agree that at least once per release makes sense.
    * Is twice per release too much?
* What touch points do we want to have? Just after M1, M3 and M5?
    * How? we have the pre-milestone meetings on IRC? 
    * Do we want to have more regular meetings around these times?

Meetings around release times are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the last ODL Dev Hack summit was good in that people coagulated together in a couple of rooms and got things done. OTOH, for anyone else that was there for the non-release-hackery, they had to attend sessions that were lightly attended, late, etc…  So I’d say focus on one thing or the other: dev summits that are not around release times, or hack fests that are.  It seems good to have hack fests around release times because it focuses people on the task at hand: the release, and I think its useful for people (that can) get together in person, to do so but its important that these things also have support for remote participation. The LF has equipment, tools and facilities for remote participation (and ODL owns some too), so we should put that to good use.  




On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau <tnadeau@...> wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2014:3:56 PM, at 3:56 PM, Kyle Mestery <mestery@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Thomas Bachman
> <bachman@...> wrote:
>> In theory, adding the Functionality, API, and Code freezes with ~1
>> month between them, along with the added testing requirements keeps us
>> from being faced with integrating a large number of commits within a
>> very short period of time. That said (and maybe I'm being cynical
>> here), it seems as though there will be a point in the development
>> where a bunch of code gets merged that forces us work through
>> integration issues. Do folks think this will be M3?  M5?  I guess I
>> ask this only because that's likely when we'd want people to be in
>> close proximity so they can collaboratively work through these issues
>> as rapidly as possible. My gut tells me this is is more likely to be
>> M5 than M3, though the release plan seems to say it should be M3. I'd
>> personally make a best guess as to which one it is and go with meeting
>> up then.
> Given how distributed the project is (maybe it's not and everyone
> working on this except me, you and a few others are not in the bay
> area), this is exactly why we don't want to require hackfest
> attendance and promote 3+ hackfests each release. If we require people
> to be face to face to solve these issues, the project won't scale, and
> it's lifecycle will be limited by the scaling factor of a handful of
> people. We need to be able to work in a distributed fashion to grow
> the project. Doing these things distributed and virtual allows that
> growth. We've reached the point in the project where this should be
> possible.

        Precisely. For one, I am trying to help promote/grow the community in Europe with some hack fests there. Having people have to all be there in person is just as bad as asking everyone to get together in California.

> It's that reason, along with the cost of travel (both money and time)
> which are my big beefs with all these hackfests. They may be
> productive in the short term, but they set a bad precedent for the
> project in the long-term, and really limit it's growth.

        Me too, especially when they are off in odd places like the one in Napa. Its expensive plus a PITA to get to.  Its cool being there in person, but we have to weigh the relative cost.

> I know OpenDaylight uses OpenStack as a role model, and the recent
> pushback towards mid-cycle meetings for OpenStack should serve as a
> warning as to what happens when "face to face" becomes a requirement
> for development of an open source project.
> I'll go back to lurking now. :)

        Me too...back in the box!


> Thanks,
> Kyle
>> Also -- given that there's a 1 month span between offset 0 and offset
>> 2 for these, when do we want to plan it?  Should it be for the offset
>> 2 date?
>> cheers,
>> -Thomas
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>>    I think that may be a good idea… any thoughts on what that mix would look like?
>>> Ed
>>>> On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Thomas D. Nadeau <tnadeau@...> wrote:
>>>>      Can we accommodate a mix of virtual and real participants to lessen the requirement for travel?
>>>>      --Tom
>>>>> On Nov 19, 2014:9:14 AM, at 9:14 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery@...> wrote:
>>>>> -1 to 3 Hackfests for this release. That's asking people not in the
>>>>> bay area to travel an inceasing amountl, as it doesn't even include
>>>>> the ODL Summit, which is a fourth trip. At some point, the travel
>>>>> becomes too much. Thus, the virtual hackathon's become a nice way
>>>>> forward and allow everyone to participate who doesn't have a monstrous
>>>>> travel budget.
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote:
>>>>>> Just an update folks on the hackfests.
>>>>>> We are looking for venues in the bay area for January (the week of the 12th
>>>>>> being preferred).  Thus far, the venues we've contacted have no
>>>>>> availability, but some venues have not yet responded.  We should know more
>>>>>> by the end of the week.
>>>>>> I would prefer that we hack all at the same location, so let's only talk
>>>>>> about a distributed/virtual hackfest if we can't find a venue that would
>>>>>> hold us all.  I'm estimating that 75 to 100 people would show up.
>>>>>> On the other Lithium Hackfest dates, is there consensus that having
>>>>>> hackfests around M3 and M5 (in addition to the January Hackfest) are
>>>>>> preferred?  Throw a "+1" out if you like the idea and a "-1" if you think
>>>>>> it's too much.
>>>>>> Your thoughts are much appreciated.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Phil.
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> I like the idea of getting people together.
>>>>>>> My gut reaction is that cross-project release planning will be somewhat
>>>>>>> harder than we might hope at a face-to-face event because attendance from
>>>>>>> the different projects is likely to hit and miss. That doesn't necessarily
>>>>>>> mean that it's a bad idea, but just that we'll need to try really hard to
>>>>>>> get at least some people from each participating project to join the
>>>>>>> hackfest virtually if they can't attend physically and make sure that we are
>>>>>>> very inclusive of our virtual participants—even more so than in the past.
>>>>>>> I think getting together for a real hackfest, i.e., one where we push on
>>>>>>> code in between M2 and M3 is actually a really good idea. My guess is that
>>>>>>> there are logical groups of people working on code that could benefit from
>>>>>>> actually sitting at a table together and hacking through things for a day or
>>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>> I think in general the idea that we would have hackfests for a few days
>>>>>>> around M1, M3 and M5 each release with a larger event loosely following the
>>>>>>> release is maybe a good general pattern.
>>>>>>> --Colin
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Should have clarified - I like Luis' idea as well.
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare
>>>>>>>> <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I like this idea as well.
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea.
>>>>>>>>>> Besides this one I also see value in gathering around:
>>>>>>>>>> - M3: to define and hack the project features
>>>>>>>>>> - M5: to cut stable branches and do some bug fixing
>>>>>>>>>> BR/Luis
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Would it make sense (or be possible) to have a  Hackfest for Release
>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to 1/13-15 in Santa Clara?
>>>>>>>>>>> The idea would be to get folks together for inter project
>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration on Release Plans (and hopefully to write
>>>>>>>>>>> some code towards that).
>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? (including other points in the Release Cycle where
>>>>>>>>>>> Hackfests might or might not make sense)
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> TSC mailing list
>>>>>>> TSC@...
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Phil Robb
>>>>>> Director - Networking Solutions
>>>>>> The Linux Foundation
>>>>>> (O) 970-229-5949
>>>>>> (M) 970-420-4292
>>>>>> Skype: Phil.Robb
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss@...
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss@...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@...
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
> TSC@...

Discuss mailing list

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.