|
+1
I wasn't suggesting it to save time, but instead to make sure people can attend all 3 and that we have them in the right order.
--Colin
On Sep 23, 2014 4:36 PM, "Robert Varga" < nite@...> wrote:
I think these three kind of build on
top of each other, so I think it might make sense to overflow Ed's
switch/device model to Tuesday just to give the Monday topics sink
in.
So while I think we can combine them, I am not sure we'll save any
time, just because these topics are very contended and need to be
discussed in depth.
Bye,
Robert
On 09/23/2014 10:48 PM, Colin Dixon wrote:
My guess is that Ed would have to be in two places at once
Monday from 3:45–4:45 to run both the "splitting up the
controller" and the "models for application co-existence"
talks. One or the other should likely be moved, but I think
they're both important to talk about.
My guess is that these three topics are tightly
inter-related, but I could be wrong:
*
Models for Application Co-existence - Ed Warnicke
(Mon 3:45–4:45)
* Inventories,
Topologies, Models, and Instances - Robert Varga (Mon,
4:45–5:45)
* Simple
Extensible Common Switch/Device Model - Ed Warnicke (Mon,
4:45–5:45)
(I'm
cc'ing Robert and Ed to see if we can maybe combine them.)
--Colin
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
On Sep 23, 2014:6:14 PM, at 6:14 PM, Robert Varga < nite@...> wrote:
Hello Phil,
thanks for updating the slides and keeping general track of this.
After glancing through the agenda, several thoughts pop to mind:
I think Salon 5's back-to-back sessions really zero in on
intertwined topics which I would like to attend. To that end I
think it would be good if Tony lead Monday's BindingSpecV2
discussion and we had a follow-up in the Tuesday 2:30 slot -- the
topic is certainly large enough to warrant two hours of focused
discussions. As for the inter-project infra slot, I would love to
have Colin and Vasu join in, so we open up the discussion with
other alternatives besides maven.
For the 'Refactoring the Controller" discussion, I would champion
Tony, Moiz and Maros Marsalek for leading that discussion since
they really have enough know-how and pure stamina to get that job
>90% done just among themselves :-). I think we need some TSC
input there as well, as the obvious discussion around what is a
project/git repo is bound to ensue.
For obvious reasons you really should bring in some non-Cisco folks to help lead the controller refactoring discussion. I am sure that Devin or Tom P are available. *)
--Tom
Unfortunately I cannot attend both the versioning and HA sessions
-- but I will prioritize versioning as it has been
under-prioritized and we need to have it resolved by the time
Litium ships. But on the HA side of things, we need an additional
tie-in session. My thinking around that is the following:
1) Mathieu's Karaf session will start the lifecycle discussion
2) The clustering session will gather the HA ideas out there
3) The API session will explore some of the requirements
4) The versioning session will build up on 3)
5) Mark's persistence and backup&restore will gather further
requirements around data lifecycle
We need a tie-in session, which will sum up the Salon 6's Tuesday
sessions, specifically where we will combine these five topics
above into a coherent HA + ISSU + data lifecycle story, which will
cover most if not all the requirements brought up in 1-5 and drive
the Lithium application design best practices.
Bye,
Robert
On 09/22/2014 09:52 PM, Phil Robb wrote:
Hello TSC:
I have added the suggestions and submissions from the
various email threads and have included them in the
spreadsheets referenced below. Nearly all of the provided
topics have been assigned a place on the Agenda[0]. The only
cases where a topic has not been put on the agenda is in the
case of there being no clear discussion leader for the topic
or over-booking of presenters.
There are still plenty of un-conference slots available so
if folks want to discuss one of these topics and a
knowledgable leader can be found onsite, the discussion will
still happen. It just won't be on the schedule prior to the
event.
Please take a look and let me know if you would like to
suggest any changes and/or re-prioritization of any topic
areas at your earliest opportunity. I would like to post this
soon so that those wanting to attend particular topics are
able to plan their day(s) and those leading topics know when
and where they need to be.
Thanks,
Phil.
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
Hello Phil,
thanks for updating the slides and keeping general track of this.
After glancing through the agenda, several thoughts pop to mind:
I think Salon 5's back-to-back sessions really zero in on
intertwined topics which I would like to attend. To that end I
think it would be good if Tony lead Monday's BindingSpecV2
discussion and we had a follow-up in the Tuesday 2:30 slot -- the
topic is certainly large enough to warrant two hours of focused
discussions. As for the inter-project infra slot, I would love to
have Colin and Vasu join in, so we open up the discussion with
other alternatives besides maven.
For the 'Refactoring the Controller" discussion, I would champion
Tony, Moiz and Maros Marsalek for leading that discussion since
they really have enough know-how and pure stamina to get that job
>90% done just among themselves :-). I think we need some TSC
input there as well, as the obvious discussion around what is a
project/git repo is bound to ensue.
Unfortunately I cannot attend both the versioning and HA sessions
-- but I will prioritize versioning as it has been
under-prioritized and we need to have it resolved by the time
Litium ships. But on the HA side of things, we need an additional
tie-in session. My thinking around that is the following:
1) Mathieu's Karaf session will start the lifecycle discussion
2) The clustering session will gather the HA ideas out there
3) The API session will explore some of the requirements
4) The versioning session will build up on 3)
5) Mark's persistence and backup&restore will gather further
requirements around data lifecycle
We need a tie-in session, which will sum up the Salon 6's Tuesday
sessions, specifically where we will combine these five topics
above into a coherent HA + ISSU + data lifecycle story, which will
cover most if not all the requirements brought up in 1-5 and drive
the Lithium application design best practices.
Bye,
Robert
On 09/22/2014 09:52 PM, Phil Robb wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hello TSC:
I have added the suggestions and submissions from the
various email threads and have included them in the
spreadsheets referenced below. Nearly all of the provided
topics have been assigned a place on the Agenda[0]. The only
cases where a topic has not been put on the agenda is in the
case of there being no clear discussion leader for the topic
or over-booking of presenters.
There are still plenty of un-conference slots available so
if folks want to discuss one of these topics and a
knowledgable leader can be found onsite, the discussion will
still happen. It just won't be on the schedule prior to the
event.
Please take a look and let me know if you would like to
suggest any changes and/or re-prioritization of any topic
areas at your earliest opportunity. I would like to post this
soon so that those wanting to attend particular topics are
able to plan their day(s) and those leading topics know when
and where they need to be.
Thanks,
Phil.
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
I think these three kind of build on
top of each other, so I think it might make sense to overflow Ed's
switch/device model to Tuesday just to give the Monday topics sink
in.
So while I think we can combine them, I am not sure we'll save any
time, just because these topics are very contended and need to be
discussed in depth.
Bye,
Robert
On 09/23/2014 10:48 PM, Colin Dixon wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
My guess is that Ed would have to be in two places at once
Monday from 3:45–4:45 to run both the "splitting up the
controller" and the "models for application co-existence"
talks. One or the other should likely be moved, but I think
they're both important to talk about.
My guess is that these three topics are tightly
inter-related, but I could be wrong:
*
Models for Application Co-existence - Ed Warnicke
(Mon 3:45–4:45)
* Inventories,
Topologies, Models, and Instances - Robert Varga (Mon,
4:45–5:45)
* Simple
Extensible Common Switch/Device Model - Ed Warnicke (Mon,
4:45–5:45)
(I'm
cc'ing Robert and Ed to see if we can maybe combine them.)
--Colin
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
My guess is that Ed would have to be in two places at once Monday from 3:45–4:45 to run both the "splitting up the controller" and the "models for application co-existence" talks. One or the other should likely be moved, but I think they're both important to talk about.
My guess is that these three topics are tightly inter-related, but I could be wrong:
* Models for Application Co-existence - Ed Warnicke (Mon 3:45–4:45)
* Inventories, Topologies, Models, and Instances - Robert Varga (Mon, 4:45–5:45)
* Simple Extensible Common Switch/Device Model - Ed Warnicke (Mon, 4:45–5:45)
(I'm cc'ing Robert and Ed to see if we can maybe combine them.)
--Colin
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote: Hello members of the TSC:
While we can maintain flexibility with the un-conference topics for the Developer Design Forum, it will be very helpful for those attending if we can publish this schedule to a broader audience. If I do not hear any objections by the end of the day, I will have the PR folks publish this agenda through our normal communication channels (website, social, etc).
Thanks,
Phil.
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
Hello members of the TSC:
While we can maintain flexibility with the un-conference topics for the Developer Design Forum, it will be very helpful for those attending if we can publish this schedule to a broader audience. If I do not hear any objections by the end of the day, I will have the PR folks publish this agenda through our normal communication channels (website, social, etc).
Thanks,
Phil.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote: Hello TSC:
I have added the suggestions and submissions from the various email threads and have included them in the spreadsheets referenced below. Nearly all of the provided topics have been assigned a place on the Agenda[0]. The only cases where a topic has not been put on the agenda is in the case of there being no clear discussion leader for the topic or over-booking of presenters.
There are still plenty of un-conference slots available so if folks want to discuss one of these topics and a knowledgable leader can be found onsite, the discussion will still happen. It just won't be on the schedule prior to the event.
Please take a look and let me know if you would like to suggest any changes and/or re-prioritization of any topic areas at your earliest opportunity. I would like to post this soon so that those wanting to attend particular topics are able to plan their day(s) and those leading topics know when and where they need to be.
Thanks,
Phil.
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
|
|
|
Hello TSC:
I have added the suggestions and submissions from the various email threads and have included them in the spreadsheets referenced below. Nearly all of the provided topics have been assigned a place on the Agenda[0]. The only cases where a topic has not been put on the agenda is in the case of there being no clear discussion leader for the topic or over-booking of presenters.
There are still plenty of un-conference slots available so if folks want to discuss one of these topics and a knowledgable leader can be found onsite, the discussion will still happen. It just won't be on the schedule prior to the event.
Please take a look and let me know if you would like to suggest any changes and/or re-prioritization of any topic areas at your earliest opportunity. I would like to post this soon so that those wanting to attend particular topics are able to plan their day(s) and those leading topics know when and where they need to be.
Thanks,
Phil.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote: Hello TSC Members:
I ask for your help and feedback in preparing for the Lithium Developer Design Forum scheduled for September 29th and 30th.
We will be running this event as a hybrid design-summit and un-conference. We have a list of topics that have been pre-submitted by community members [0]. I have mapped those talks into a tentative agenda [1]. Along with those talks, we also have ample time and space allotted for un-conference topics to be decided and driven during the event. I have weighted the un-conference slots more to day two with the expectation that the more formal discussions on day one will lead to follow-on un-conference sessions on day two.
Please take a look at [0] and [1] and let me know your thoughts; on content, timing/arrangement, etc. Once we are good with this I'll have the PR folks post the agenda in a more public manner.
Thanks for your help with this.
Phil.
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation Skype: Phil.Robb
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Phil,
I think almost *everyone* missed the memo to fill out a form… the vast majority of the submission (as you can see below) came in
not in that form… I’m concerned we are going to miss the vast majority of the conversations the community actually wants (
and declared they wanted) are going to be left off of the formal schedule.
Could we please include the community desired topics referenced below on the list for consideration?
Most of the folks who submitted already are likely heads down, and are unlikely to notice the call to fill in a form, could you please
just include the referenced topics from the community?
Ed
On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Phil Robb < probb@...> wrote:
Devin is correct.
In the call for topics here:
... I tried to make it quite clear that if someone had a discussion topic they wanted to *lead*, they needed to fill out the google form, which includes such important fields as who is leading the discussion, how long it will be, anything needed paper/easel,
projector, etc. This information is critical to proper scheduling (ie each discussion topic must have at least one leader and you don't want to double-book discussion leaders).
With the exception of Robert's email (sorry Robert for missing yours) the rest of the emails you point to are more of a conversation around what might be good topics to discuss as opposed the information (such as a definitive leader(s), length, etc) needed
to actually schedule a discussion.
The great thing about this format is that if a topic isn't on the formal agenda, there is still plenty of opportunity to get interested folks in a room to discuss it.
How about we do this: The google form is still live here:
*Anyone* that has not submitted a discussion topic through the form that wants to lead a discussion please do so by the end of the day *today*. Tomorrow morning I'll collect up the entries and send to the TSC for prioritization/approval, then get them
scheduled into an agenda.
Robert, please take your list of submissions and also fill out a form for each. If there are other key leaders for each discussion topic, please list them on the form so that I avoid over-booking anyone when schedule the sessions.
Thanks,
Phil.
|
|
|
Devin is correct.
In the call for topics here:
... I tried to make it quite clear that if someone had a discussion topic they wanted to *lead*, they needed to fill out the google form, which includes such important fields as who is leading the discussion, how long it will be, anything needed paper/easel, projector, etc. This information is critical to proper scheduling (ie each discussion topic must have at least one leader and you don't want to double-book discussion leaders).
With the exception of Robert's email (sorry Robert for missing yours) the rest of the emails you point to are more of a conversation around what might be good topics to discuss as opposed the information (such as a definitive leader(s), length, etc) needed to actually schedule a discussion.
The great thing about this format is that if a topic isn't on the formal agenda, there is still plenty of opportunity to get interested folks in a room to discuss it.
How about we do this: The google form is still live here:
*Anyone* that has not submitted a discussion topic through the form that wants to lead a discussion please do so by the end of the day *today*. Tomorrow morning I'll collect up the entries and send to the TSC for prioritization/approval, then get them scheduled into an agenda.
Robert, please take your list of submissions and also fill out a form for each. If there are other key leaders for each discussion topic, please list them on the form so that I avoid over-booking anyone when schedule the sessions.
Thanks,
Phil.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Devin Avery <davery@...> wrote:
It is possible that Phil's list may have only included the ones submitted via the google docs form he sent out at the beginning of September and not the ones sent via e-mail.
Devin
From: "Ed Warnicke (eaw)" < eaw@...> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM To: Phil Robb < probb@...> Cc: " tsc@..." < tsc@...> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Topics and agenda for the Developer Design Forum
Phil,
I may be scanning the spreadsheet to fast, but I think you missed these:
and these:
and these:
and these:
and this one:
and these:
We’vre had a bunch of really awesome topics proposed, but I *think* I’m not seeing many of them listed here.
Ed
On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Phil Robb < probb@...> wrote: Hello TSC Members:
I ask for your help and feedback in preparing for the Lithium Developer Design Forum scheduled for September 29th and 30th.
We will be running this event as a hybrid design-summit and un-conference. We have a list of topics that have been pre-submitted by community members [0]. I have mapped those talks into a tentative agenda [1]. Along with those talks, we also have ample
time and space allotted for un-conference topics to be decided and driven during the event. I have weighted the un-conference slots more to day two with the expectation that the more formal discussions on day one will lead to follow-on un-conference sessions
on day two.
Please take a look at [0] and [1] and let me know your thoughts; on content, timing/arrangement, etc. Once we are good with this I'll have the PR folks post the agenda in a more public manner.
Thanks for your help with this.
Phil.
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation Skype: Phil.Robb
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
|
|
|
It is possible that Phil's list may have only included the ones submitted via the google docs form he sent out at the beginning of September and not the ones sent via e-mail.
Devin
From: "Ed Warnicke (eaw)" < eaw@...> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM To: Phil Robb < probb@...> Cc: " tsc@..." < tsc@...> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Topics and agenda for the Developer Design Forum
Phil,
I may be scanning the spreadsheet to fast, but I think you missed these:
and these:
and these:
and these:
and this one:
and these:
We’vre had a bunch of really awesome topics proposed, but I *think* I’m not seeing many of them listed here.
Ed
On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Phil Robb < probb@...> wrote: Hello TSC Members:
I ask for your help and feedback in preparing for the Lithium Developer Design Forum scheduled for September 29th and 30th.
We will be running this event as a hybrid design-summit and un-conference. We have a list of topics that have been pre-submitted by community members [0]. I have mapped those talks into a tentative agenda [1]. Along with those talks, we also have ample
time and space allotted for un-conference topics to be decided and driven during the event. I have weighted the un-conference slots more to day two with the expectation that the more formal discussions on day one will lead to follow-on un-conference sessions
on day two.
Please take a look at [0] and [1] and let me know your thoughts; on content, timing/arrangement, etc. Once we are good with this I'll have the PR folks post the agenda in a more public manner.
Thanks for your help with this.
Phil.
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Phil,
I may be scanning the spreadsheet to fast, but I think you missed these:
and these:
and these:
and these:
and this one:
and these:
We’vre had a bunch of really awesome topics proposed, but I *think* I’m not
seeing many of them listed here.
Ed
On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Phil Robb < probb@...> wrote:
Hello TSC Members:
I ask for your help and feedback in preparing for the Lithium Developer Design Forum scheduled for September 29th and 30th.
We will be running this event as a hybrid design-summit and un-conference. We have a list of topics that have been pre-submitted by community members [0]. I have mapped those talks into a tentative agenda [1]. Along with those talks, we also have ample
time and space allotted for un-conference topics to be decided and driven during the event. I have weighted the un-conference slots more to day two with the expectation that the more formal discussions on day one will lead to follow-on un-conference sessions
on day two.
Please take a look at [0] and [1] and let me know your thoughts; on content, timing/arrangement, etc. Once we are good with this I'll have the PR folks post the agenda in a more public manner.
Thanks for your help with this.
Phil.
--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
Hello TSC Members:
I ask for your help and feedback in preparing for the Lithium Developer Design Forum scheduled for September 29th and 30th.
We will be running this event as a hybrid design-summit and un-conference. We have a list of topics that have been pre-submitted by community members [0]. I have mapped those talks into a tentative agenda [1]. Along with those talks, we also have ample time and space allotted for un-conference topics to be decided and driven during the event. I have weighted the un-conference slots more to day two with the expectation that the more formal discussions on day one will lead to follow-on un-conference sessions on day two.
Please take a look at [0] and [1] and let me know your thoughts; on content, timing/arrangement, etc. Once we are good with this I'll have the PR folks post the agenda in a more public manner.
Thanks for your help with this.
Phil.
-- Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
|
|
|
