|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
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@...
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
So… my initial gut reaction about a hackfest around M3 and M5 is positive… but it might be helpful to think about the reasoning there…
To my mind, the reasons for hackfests might be something like this:
Between M1 and M2: Coordinate on cross project release planning and kicking off coding (Projects have initial release plans at M1, and coordinate cross project to finalize them by M2)
Around M3: Bringing functionality across the finish line (M3 is ‘functionality freeze’, meaning you should finalize the list of APIs you are exposing to others and the functionality you intend to ship, but
you don’t have to ‘API freeze’ completely till M4).
Around M5: Bug fix, bug fix, bug fix (M5 is ‘code freeze’)
You might shorthand these as:
Hackfest:Plan (around M1)
Hackfest:Integration (around M3)
Hackfest:Bug Fix (around M5)
Do folks have other thoughts?
Ed
On 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.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
Kyle Mestery <mestery@...>
-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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
Can we accommodate a mix of virtual and real participants to lessen the requirement for travel?
--Tom
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Tom,
I think that may be a good idea… any thoughts on what that mix would look like?
Ed
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
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.
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
Kyle Mestery <mestery@...>
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. 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. 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. :) 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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
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! --Tom
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@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
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?
Thoughts?
--Colin
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.
> 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!
--Tom
>
> 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@...
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss@...
>>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss@...
>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss@...
>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@...
>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
> TSC@...
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
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.
—Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth re-iterating:
1. SCOPE. - Design Summits: - should NEVER be pre-release. If anything it makes more sense to do this a month after (once folks have had a chance to catch their breath) - should be about Design, and any “hacking” is a means to that end. Shouldn’t be contributor exclusive, but folks need to know this isn’t a entry TOI.
- Symposiums: - should co-incide with a release. (That’s the sales/marketing side of me speaking). - should be user/operator focused rather than contributor focused (this is a matter of degrees, i.e. level and % of talks at that level) - “Hacking” should be of similar proportions to the audience
- Hackfests: - Fall into two categories for me: - internal ODL contributor project get together, cross-project pollenation, Jazz-Funk odyssey-fest - external “big tent” type affairs that encourage folks to write apps to CONSUME the controller, not necessarily augment it (ie a new project) per se (again, a matter of degrees).
- internal MUST be structured around maximising the ability for folks to participate remotely. This would mean A/V, screen sharing, ways of sharing code etc. - 2 events. 1 piggy backed onto Design Summit (ie early in the cycle). 1 say a month before code-freeze (???).
- external IMHO should be locally driven ie a number of them, co-ordinated to occur at roughly the same date(s) globally, as this would encourage people outside of ODL to attend in person, and get face time with contributors. Again, video should be an option based on contributor density to host these. - 2 events. 1 mid-cycle, 1 piggy backed onto symposium
On Nov 20, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Thomas D. Nadeau < tnadeau@...> wrote: 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.
—Tom
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
Hi Folks:
I'd like to drive this discussion to conclusion so that I can give our Events folks some guidance on when they should be finding us a location in the Bay area to meet.
Given the comments thus far on this thread, here's my proposal:
For M1 to M2 inter-project coordination, and to help projects review their release plans for completeness, we hold weekly IRC meetings at 7:30am PT. All Project leads (or their delegates) will need to be in attendance. The format of the IRC meetings will be: - Any questions from one project to another - Announcements of any potential changes from a project that may affect other projects - Any questions on what should, or should not be in a release plan - As M2 approaches for projects, review and comments on each project's release plan (Is each deliverable described clearly?, Are dependencies documented and agreed to?, etc).
To come together for a single face to face, we schedule it at the end of M4 / beginning of M5; specifically targeting April 14/15 (a Tues/Wed). This is just before code freeze for Offset 1 projects so the last of the needed functionality should be complete, and 2 days of quick iteration doing test/fix for cross-project functionality can help validate that everything needed is present, and the first few passes at the biggest show-stopper bugs can be run. For those that will be unable to travel for this event, we will provide the same (or hopefully a bit better) remote participation support. We are always trying to figure out better ways of involving the remote participants so if you have any ideas, please don't hesitate to share them.
Please let me know your thoughts. As always, to lock down a venue in the Bay area, the sooner we agree on a date, the better chance we have at getting a good place.
Thanks,
Phil.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:50 AM, alagalah <burns@...> wrote: I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth re-iterating:
1. SCOPE. - Design Summits: - should NEVER be pre-release. If anything it makes more sense to do this a month after (once folks have had a chance to catch their breath) - should be about Design, and any “hacking” is a means to that end. Shouldn’t be contributor exclusive, but folks need to know this isn’t a entry TOI.
- Symposiums: - should co-incide with a release. (That’s the sales/marketing side of me speaking). - should be user/operator focused rather than contributor focused (this is a matter of degrees, i.e. level and % of talks at that level) - “Hacking” should be of similar proportions to the audience
- Hackfests: - Fall into two categories for me: - internal ODL contributor project get together, cross-project pollenation, Jazz-Funk odyssey-fest - external “big tent” type affairs that encourage folks to write apps to CONSUME the controller, not necessarily augment it (ie a new project) per se (again, a matter of degrees).
- internal MUST be structured around maximising the ability for folks to participate remotely. This would mean A/V, screen sharing, ways of sharing code etc. - 2 events. 1 piggy backed onto Design Summit (ie early in the cycle). 1 say a month before code-freeze (???).
- external IMHO should be locally driven ie a number of them, co-ordinated to occur at roughly the same date(s) globally, as this would encourage people outside of ODL to attend in person, and get face time with contributors. Again, video should be an option based on contributor density to host these. - 2 events. 1 mid-cycle, 1 piggy backed onto symposium
On Nov 20, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Thomas D. Nadeau < tnadeau@...> wrote: 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.
—Tom
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
So, the high order bits of your suggestion are:
1.) We will have no face-to-face meeting between M1 and M2. 2.) Instead, we will have weekly IRC meetings. 3.) We will have a face-to-face meeting around the M4/M5 boundary
I'm not opposed to that, but I was never the strongest proponent of the face-to-face meeting for release plan iteration, so maybe I'm not the right person to answer.
When were we planning to have the weekly IRC meetings? Is that TBD? Do we want to have 2/week to deal with time zones? My guess is yes. Trying to get them to meet the needs of 20+ projects in a sane time slot seems hard. The offsets may help though as we can focus on a subset of projects each time.
--Colin
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote: Hi Folks:
I'd like to drive this discussion to conclusion so that I can give our Events folks some guidance on when they should be finding us a location in the Bay area to meet.
Given the comments thus far on this thread, here's my proposal:
For M1 to M2 inter-project coordination, and to help projects review their release plans for completeness, we hold weekly IRC meetings at 7:30am PT. All Project leads (or their delegates) will need to be in attendance. The format of the IRC meetings will be: - Any questions from one project to another - Announcements of any potential changes from a project that may affect other projects - Any questions on what should, or should not be in a release plan - As M2 approaches for projects, review and comments on each project's release plan (Is each deliverable described clearly?, Are dependencies documented and agreed to?, etc).
To come together for a single face to face, we schedule it at the end of M4 / beginning of M5; specifically targeting April 14/15 (a Tues/Wed). This is just before code freeze for Offset 1 projects so the last of the needed functionality should be complete, and 2 days of quick iteration doing test/fix for cross-project functionality can help validate that everything needed is present, and the first few passes at the biggest show-stopper bugs can be run. For those that will be unable to travel for this event, we will provide the same (or hopefully a bit better) remote participation support. We are always trying to figure out better ways of involving the remote participants so if you have any ideas, please don't hesitate to share them.
Please let me know your thoughts. As always, to lock down a venue in the Bay area, the sooner we agree on a date, the better chance we have at getting a good place.
Thanks,
Phil.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
|
|
I personally like face to face meetings because we get lot of things discussed and done in very short time. And I do not think this is because we see each other faces, but because we disconnect from daily work and focus very much in OpenDaylight for couple of days. I also understand the economic and the travel burden so i will adapt to any decision.
BR/Luis
On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Colin Dixon < colin@...> wrote:
So, the high order bits of your suggestion are:
1.) We will have no face-to-face meeting between M1 and M2. 2.) Instead, we will have weekly IRC meetings. 3.) We will have a face-to-face meeting around the M4/M5 boundary
I'm not opposed to that, but I was never the strongest proponent of the face-to-face meeting for release plan iteration, so maybe I'm not the right person to answer.
When were we planning to have the weekly IRC meetings? Is that TBD? Do we want to have 2/week to deal with time zones? My guess is yes. Trying to get them to meet the needs of 20+ projects in a sane time slot seems hard. The offsets may help though as we can focus on a subset of projects each time.
--Colin
_______________________________________________ TSC mailing list TSC@...https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
