settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations of core reviewers

0 votes

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Thanks,
Michael

--
Rackspace Australia

asked Aug 12, 2014 in openstack-dev by Michael_Still (16,180 points)   3 6 13
retagged Jan 26, 2017 by admin

63 Responses

0 votes

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:
Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

responded Aug 13, 2014 by Daniel_P._Berrange (27,920 points)   2 4 10
0 votes

On 08/12/2014 06:57 PM, Michael Still wrote:
Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Note that we also have:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/CoreTeam

so once new critera reaches consensus, it should be added there.

--
Russell Bryant

responded Aug 13, 2014 by Russell_Bryant (19,240 points)   2 3 8
0 votes

On 08/13/2014 05:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Yep, this bit is obviously the most important. I would prefer a good
level of review activity be the only hard requirement.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

I'm concerned about this, as well. There are lots of reasons people
can't attend things (budget or personal reasons). I'd hate to think
that not being able to travel this much (which I think is a lot) hurts
someone's ability to be an important part of the nova team.
Unfortunately, that's the direction we're trending.

I also think it furthers the image of nova being an exclusive clique. I
think we should always look at things as ways to be as inclusive as
possible. Focusing the important conversations at the 4 in-person
meetups per year leaves most of the community out.

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

I can confirm that this is the effect I am seeing for our team. There
were a lot of meetups this cycle, and it was expensive.

This was actually one of the arguments against splitting the design
summit out from the main conference, yet I'm afraid we've created the
problem anyway.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

Indeed, and we actually need to be strongly encouraging cross-project
participation.

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

I think this is a nice concrete suggestion for an alternative. I think
it's worth exploring in more detail. I would much prefer something like
this as a replacement for the mid-cycle stuff and save the in-person
meetings for the existing twice-per-year summits.

--
Russell Bryant

responded Aug 13, 2014 by Russell_Bryant (19,240 points)   2 3 8
0 votes

A big +1 to what daniel said,

If f2f events are becoming so important & the only way to get things
done, IMHO we should really start to do some reflection on how our
community operates and start thinking about what we are doing wrong.
Expecting every company to send developers (core or non-core) to all
these events is unrealistic (and IMHO is the wrong path our community
should go down). If only cores go (they can probably convince their
employers they should/need to), these f2f events become something akin
to secret f2f meetings where decisions are made behind some set of
closed-doors (maybe cores should then be renamed the 'secret society of
core reviewers', maybe even giving them a illuminati like logo, haha),
that doesn't seem very open to me (and as daniel said further
stratifies the people who work on openstack...).

Going the whole virtual route does seem better (although it still feels
like something is wrong with how we are operating if that's even
needed).

-Josh

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked
to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is
an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores.
In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need
to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as
the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it
was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same
direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My
stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the
dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't
directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to
attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle
summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of
having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different
location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to
take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even
more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions
about
which to go to :-(

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 13, 2014 by Joshua_Harlow (12,560 points)   1 4 4
0 votes

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 08/13/2014 05:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Yep, this bit is obviously the most important. I would prefer a good
level of review activity be the only hard requirement.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

I'm concerned about this, as well. There are lots of reasons people
can't attend things (budget or personal reasons). I'd hate to think
that not being able to travel this much (which I think is a lot) hurts
someone's ability to be an important part of the nova team.
Unfortunately, that's the direction we're trending.

+1

I've seen a definitie uptick in travel for OpenStack, and it's not
sustainable for all the reasons stated here. We need to figure out a
better way to collaborate virtually, as we're a global Open Source
project and we can't assume that everyone can travel all the time for
all the mid-cycles, conferences, etc.

I also think it furthers the image of nova being an exclusive clique. I
think we should always look at things as ways to be as inclusive as
possible. Focusing the important conversations at the 4 in-person
meetups per year leaves most of the community out.

Again, I agree with this assessment. We need to shift things back to
the weekly IRC meetings, ML discussions, and perhaps some sort of
virtual conference scheduling as well.

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

I can confirm that this is the effect I am seeing for our team. There
were a lot of meetups this cycle, and it was expensive.

This was actually one of the arguments against splitting the design
summit out from the main conference, yet I'm afraid we've created the
problem anyway.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

Indeed, and we actually need to be strongly encouraging cross-project
participation.

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

I think this is a nice concrete suggestion for an alternative. I think
it's worth exploring in more detail. I would much prefer something like
this as a replacement for the mid-cycle stuff and save the in-person
meetings for the existing twice-per-year summits.

I'd like to see this option used as well and see how it works out.

--
Russell Bryant


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 13, 2014 by Kyle_Mestery (16,960 points)   3 3 7
0 votes

Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berrange at redhat.com] wrote:

our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

How about arranging some high quality telepresence rooms? A number of
the big companies associated with OpenStack either make or own some
pretty nice systems. Perhaps it could be negotiated for some of these
companies to open their doors to allow OpenStack developers for some
scheduled events.

With some scheduling and coordination effort it would probably be
possible to setup a bunch of local meet-up points interconnected
by telepresence links.

responded Aug 13, 2014 by CARVER,_PAUL (1,540 points)   3 4
0 votes

On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

I was fortunate to attend both the Nova and Neutron mid-cycles last month, and I can attest to how productive these gatherings were. Discussion moved quickly and misunderstandings were rapidly resolved. Informal ('water-cooler') conversation led to many interactions that might not otherwise have occurred. Given your attendance of summit and other open source conferences, though, I'm assuming the value of f2f is not in question.

Nothing good is ever free. The financial cost and exclusionary nature of an in-person meetup should definitely be weighed against the opportunity for focused and high-bandwidth communication. It's clear to myself and other attendees just how valuable the recent mid-cycles were in terms of making technical decisions and building the relationships to support their implementation. Maybe it isn't sustainable over the long-term to meet so often, but I don't think that should preclude us from deriving benefit in the short-term. I also don't think we should ignore the opportunity for more effective decision-making on the grounds that not everyone can directly participate. Not everyone is able to attend summit, but it is nonetheless a critical part of our community's decision-making process. The topic lists for a mid-cycle are published beforehand, just like summit, to allow non-attendees the chance to present their views in advance and/or designate one or more attendees to advocate on their behalf. It's not perfect, but the alternative - not holding mid-cycles - would seem to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Maru

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 13, 2014 by Maru_Newby (2,460 points)   3 4
0 votes

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:01:59AM -0700, Maru Newby wrote:

On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

I was fortunate to attend both the Nova and Neutron mid-cycles last
month, and I can attest to how productive these gatherings were.
Discussion moved quickly and misunderstandings were rapidly resolved.
Informal ('water-cooler') conversation led to many interactions that
might not otherwise have occurred. Given your attendance of summit
and other open source conferences, though, I'm assuming the value of
f2f is not in question.

I'm not questioning the value of f2f - I'm questioning the idea of
doing f2f meetings sooo many times a year. OpenStack is very much
the outlier here among open source projects - the vast majority of
projects get along very well with much less f2f time and a far
smaller % of their contributors attend those f2f meetings that do
happen. So I really do question what is missing from OpenStack's
community interaction that makes us believe that having 4 f2f
meetings a year is critical to our success.

Nothing good is ever free. The financial cost and exclusionary
nature of an in-person meetup should definitely be weighed against
the opportunity for focused and high-bandwidth communication. It's
clear to myself and other attendees just how valuable the recent
mid-cycles were in terms of making technical decisions and building
the relationships to support their implementation. Maybe it isn't
sustainable over the long-term to meet so often, but I don't think
that should preclude us from deriving benefit in the short-term.

As pointed out this benefit for core devs has a direct negative
impact on other non-core devs. I'm questioning whether this is
really a net win overall vs other approaches to collaboration.

I also don't think we should ignore the opportunity for more
effective decision-making on the grounds that not everyone
can directly participate. Not everyone is able to attend
summit, but it is nonetheless a critical part of our
community's decision-making process. The topic lists for a
mid-cycle are published beforehand, just like summit, to
allow non-attendees the chance to present their views in
advance and/or designate one or more attendees to advocate
on their behalf. It's not perfect, but the alternative -
not holding mid-cycles - would seem to be a case of throwing
out the baby with the bathwater.

As I explain in the rest of my email below I'm not advocating
getting rid of mid-cycle events entirely. I'm suggesting that
we can attain a reasonable % of the benefits of f2f meetings
by doing more formal virtual meetups and so be more effcient
and inclusive overall.

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

responded Aug 13, 2014 by Daniel_P._Berrange (27,920 points)   2 4 10
0 votes

On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

I was fortunate to attend both the Nova and Neutron mid-cycles last month, and I can attest to how productive these gatherings were. Discussion moved quickly and misunderstandings were rapidly resolved. Informal ('water-cooler') conversation led to many interactions that might not otherwise have occurred. Given your attendance of summit and other open source conferences, though, I'm assuming the value of f2f is not in question.

Nothing good is ever free. The financial cost and exclusionary nature of an in-person meetup should definitely be weighed against the opportunity for focused and high-bandwidth communication. It's clear to myself and other attendees just how valuable the recent mid-cycles were in terms of making technical decisions and building the relationships to support their implementation. Maybe it isn't sustainable over the long-term to meet so often, but I don't think that should preclude us from deriving benefit in the short-term. I also don't think we should ignore the opportunity for more effective decision-making on the grounds that not everyone can directly participate. Not everyone is able to attend summit, but it is nonetheless a critical part of our community's decision-making process. The topic lists for a mid-cycle are published beforehand, just like summit, to allow non-attendees the chance to present their views in advance and/or designate one or more attendees to advocate on their behalf. It's not perfect, but the alternative - not holding mid-cycles - would seem to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Maru

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 13, 2014 by Maru_Newby (2,460 points)   3 4
0 votes

My apologies, I managed to break the thread here. Please respond to the thread with subject 'Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][core] Expectations of core reviewers' in preference to this one.

Maru

On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Maru Newby wrote:

On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:40AM +1000, Michael Still wrote:

Hi.

One of the action items from the nova midcycle was that I was asked to
make nova's expectations of core reviews more clear. This email is an
attempt at that.

Nova expects a minimum level of sustained code reviews from cores. In
the past this has been generally held to be in the order of two code
reviews a day, which is a pretty low bar compared to the review
workload of many cores. I feel that existing cores understand this
requirement well, and I am mostly stating it here for completeness.

Additionally, there is increasing levels of concern that cores need to
be on the same page about the criteria we hold code to, as well as the
overall direction of nova. While the weekly meetings help here, it was
agreed that summit attendance is really important to cores. Its the
way we decide where we're going for the next cycle, as well as a
chance to make sure that people are all pulling in the same direction
and trust each other.

There is also a strong preference for midcycle meetup attendance,
although I understand that can sometimes be hard to arrange. My stance
is that I'd like core's to try to attend, but understand that
sometimes people will miss one. In response to the increasing
importance of midcycles over time, I commit to trying to get the dates
for these events announced further in advance.

Personally I'm going to find it really hard to justify long distance
travel 4 times a year for OpenStack for personal / family reasons,
let alone company cost. I couldn't attend Icehouse mid-cycle because
I just had too much travel in a short time to be able to do another
week long trip away from family. I couldn't attend Juno mid-cycle
because it clashed we personal holiday. There are other opensource
related conferences that I also have to attend (LinuxCon, FOSDEM,
KVM Forum, etc), etc so doubling the expected number of openstack
conferences from 2 to 4 is really very undesirable from my POV.
I might be able to attend the occassional mid-cycle meetup if the
location was convenient, but in general I don't see myself being
able to attend them regularly.

I tend to view the fact that we're emphasising the need of in-person
meetups to be somewhat of an indication of failure of our community
operation. The majority of open source projects work very effectively
with far less face-to-face time. OpenStack is fortunate that companies
are currently willing to spend 6/7-figure sums flying 1000's of
developers around the world many times a year, but I don't see that
lasting forever so I'm concerned about baking the idea of f2f midcycle
meetups into our way of life even more strongly.

I was fortunate to attend both the Nova and Neutron mid-cycles last month, and I can attest to how productive these gatherings were. Discussion moved quickly and misunderstandings were rapidly resolved. Informal ('water-cooler') conversation led to many interactions that might not otherwise have occurred. Given your attendance of summit and other open source conferences, though, I'm assuming the value of f2f is not in question.

Nothing good is ever free. The financial cost and exclusionary nature of an in-person meetup should definitely be weighed against the opportunity for focused and high-bandwidth communication. It's clear to myself and other attendees just how valuable the recent mid-cycles were in terms of making technical decisions and building the relationships to support their implementation. Maybe it isn't sustainable over the long-term to meet so often, but I don't think that should preclude us from deriving benefit in the short-term. I also don't think we should ignore the opportunity for more effective decision-making on the grounds that not everyone can directly participate. Not everyone is able to attend summit, but it is nonetheless a critical part of our community's decision-making process. The topic lists for a mid-cycle are published beforehand, just like summit, to allow non-attendees the chance to present their views in advance and/or designate one or more attendees to advocate on their behalf. It's not perfect, but the alternative - not holding mid-cycles - would seem to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Maru

Given that we consider these physical events so important, I'd like
people to let me know if they have travel funding issues. I can then
approach the Foundation about funding travel if that is required.

Travel funding is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure that Foundation
funding would be a solution, because the impact probably isn't directly
on the core devs. Speaking with my Red Hat on, if the midcycle meetup
is important enough, the core devs will likely get the funding to attend.
The fallout of this though is that every attendee at a mid-cycle summit
means fewer attendees at the next design summit. So the impact of having
more core devs at mid-cycle is that we'll get fewer non-core devs at
the design summit. This sucks big time for the non-core devs who want
to engage with our community.

Also having each team do a f2f mid-cycle meetup at a different location
makes it even harder for people who have a genuine desire / need to take
part in multiple teams. Going to multiple mid-cycle meetups is even more
difficult to justify so they're having to make difficult decisions about
which to go to :-(

I'm also not a fan of mid-cycle meetups because I feel it further
stratifies our contributors into two increasly distinct camps - core
vs non-core.

I can see that a big benefit of a mid-cycle meetup is to be a focal
point for collaboration, to forcably break contributors our of their
day-to-day work pattern to concentrate on discussing specific issues.
It also obviously solves the distinct timezone problem we have with
our dispersed contributor base. I think that we should be examining
what we can achieve with some kind of virtual online mid-cycle meetups
instead. Using technology like google hangouts or some similar live
collaboration technology, not merely an IRC discussion. Pick a 2-3
day period, schedule formal agendas / talking slots as you would with
a physical summit and so on. I feel this would be more inclusive to
our community as a whole, avoid excessive travel costs, so allowing
more of our community to attend the bigger design summits. It would
even open possibility of having multiple meetups during a cycle (eg
could arrange mini virtual events around each milestone if we wanted)

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Aug 13, 2014 by Maru_Newby (2,460 points)   3 4
...