14:00:59 #startmeeting Ops Meetups Team 14:01:00 Meeting started Tue May 17 14:00:59 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is fifieldt. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:01:01 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:01:04 The meeting name has been set to 'ops_meetups_team' 14:01:07 Hello all, and welcome to the first ever meeting of the generically-named "Ops Meetups Team". 14:01:13 NB: If you're new, or just idling in the channel, be sure to have read: 14:01:16 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ops_Meetups_Team 14:01:18 for background. 14:01:21 Thank you very much for coming - I'm excited about what we're going to achieve together! 14:01:30 Today's agenda starts with some fairly boring administrative stuff, and finishes with the excitement of working out how we're going to pull off the next meetup in short order. 14:01:33 # link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-meetups-team 14:01:35 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-meetups-team 14:01:46 I suspect that we'll probably get through the entire hour today, but the faster we get through agenda items 1 & 2, the more likely the following meetings will be shorter, so here goes. 14:01:54 Firstly: please write your name down on the agenda etherpad as a way of introduction, since we're a new crew. Also, please help to collaboratively summarise the discussion. 14:02:01 Secondly, if there's something else burning to put on the agenda (very likely I've missed something obvious), please add it to that same etherpad. 14:02:34 raise of hands for attendance? 14:02:37 o/ 14:02:46 o/ 14:02:47 o/ 14:02:49 o/ 14:02:49 o/ 14:02:52 o/ 14:02:53 o/ 14:02:55 o/ 14:02:55 o/ 14:02:58 o/ 14:02:59 o/ 14:03:06 0/ 14:03:15 That looks so cool :) 14:03:21 Anyway, it's 10PM here in Taiwan, I've got my fluffy slippers on, and that's working for me ... but does it work for you ... 14:03:24 #topic Meeting Time 14:03:30 WFM 14:03:31 ==> Is this time OK for the ongoing meeting time? 14:03:32 o/ 14:03:38 o/ 14:03:40 sorry 14:03:42 o/ 14:03:45 o/ 14:03:47 fifieldt: seems reasonable, considering the timezone distribution 14:03:47 o/ 14:03:53 o/ 14:03:58 o/ 14:04:01 we are just on coffee two in NYC 14:04:13 1hr earlier would be better for me but works 14:04:26 time works for me 14:04:34 indeed, it is 11pm in Japan, so quite late 14:04:40 do we have folks from US west coast, though"? 14:04:42 and 7am on the west coast :) 14:04:51 fifieldt, it's 9PM in Vietnam, so it work for me 14:05:07 anyone from EU? 14:05:08 I'm in Austin temporarily for OSCON, so 9am here, but have been on the west coast recently 14:05:10 * med_ is late 14:05:12 I'm here now though 14:05:14 * med_ had to restart his IRC proxy 14:05:16 welcome med_ 14:05:30 \0 14:05:34 \o 14:05:44 so, related question 14:05:48 Frequency 14:05:56 ==> is a frequency of every two weeks OK? 14:06:07 o/ 14:06:10 o/ 14:06:13 o/ 14:06:14 o/ 14:06:17 o/ 14:06:30 wfm 14:06:33 o/ 14:06:34 o/ 14:06:39 o/ 14:06:51 OK, so what I'm hearing is that we should meet at 1400 UTC, on Tuesdays, every two weeks. Roughly? 14:06:53 perhaps an extra meeting or two as we approach mid-cycle / summits, but generally good 14:06:59 right, that is a good point 14:07:07 there is a natural tendancy to need more closer to the events 14:07:14 tendency* 14:07:24 +1 14:07:28 so maybe we kick it off at every two weeks, because we have a lot to do to get this started 14:07:31 emccormick +1 14:07:40 then expect a bit more closer to the ops meetups 14:07:48 +1 14:07:49 and maybe after this first one we take it back a bit 14:08:00 sounda resaonable 14:08:08 would anyone like to comment further? 14:08:18 we can always review afterwards and decide to meet more often if we find that there's far more work to do and no time 14:08:31 In the interests of time, and for those who couldn't make it tonight, why don't I email it as a proposal for the mailing list 14:08:34 ? 14:08:44 o/ 14:08:46 aha, a wild dc_mattj appears 14:08:48 o/ 14:08:52 fifieldt: that works 14:08:53 ok, 14:08:59 hello, sorry got caught up in some actual cloud operation 14:09:04 dc_mattj: those damn clouds 14:09:05 nice one :) 14:09:10 have I missed much ? 14:09:10 o/ 14:09:12 #action dc_mattj keep the cloud running 14:09:20 just meeting time and frequency discussions 14:09:29 I'm just listening in since I have to drop in 20 min :( 14:09:44 #action fifieldt to email the mailing list to propose 1400 UTC Tuesdays, every two weeks, with note about changing frequency 14:09:48 rough consensus for every two weeks at this time for now, to be reviewed 14:09:54 +1 14:09:55 +1 14:10:00 +1 14:10:02 ok, so, moving on 14:10:02 +1 14:10:08 #topic Team aims, objectives and scope 14:10:09 +1 14:10:15 ==> Do you agree with what is on the wiki page as the scope for this team? https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ops_Meetups_Team 14:10:23 discussion! go! 14:10:33 ... reading 14:10:35 +1 14:10:43 +1 14:10:48 +1 14:10:53 I agree with it 14:10:57 Looks good to me fifieldt 14:11:01 +1 14:11:02 +1 lgtm 14:11:04 yup, +1 14:11:07 +1 14:11:08 +1 14:11:10 dc_mattj: I added in a sentence based on the discussion we had in Austin to emphasize that the Foundation is here to help with logistics 14:11:20 +1 14:11:27 +1 14:11:30 +1 14:11:38 we should probably add a bit about actually running the events though 14:11:44 this is true 14:11:48 there will definitely be some input from folks on this team to that 14:12:01 there's a whole blank section on "Approach" on that wiki page 14:12:09 especially for midcycles 14:12:36 at the moment there's some inherit knowledge that those who've been involved in ops meetup organisation before like dc_mattj , vw and myself have that probably needs to be written down 14:12:40 +1 for scope 14:12:50 agree fifieldt 14:12:54 and for your last comment 14:13:08 is the thought that this group would do most of the MC'ing, etc during the event? 14:13:28 what would you think is best? 14:13:35 I would have thought so, depending on who's comfortable doing that kind of stuff 14:13:36 There is also the whole scheduling piece 14:13:43 is VW van winkle? 14:13:46 yessir 14:13:57 yep, I figured we were MC-ing 14:14:05 ie, foundation for logistical support 14:14:06 IRC handles can be posted to the ether pad to help everyone know who everyone else is 14:14:24 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-meetups-team 14:14:26 do we have a new ehterpad? 14:14:26 yes, med_ 14:14:27 ^^ as per mihalis68 14:14:28 kk 14:14:43 so the practicalities, to list them very roughly off the top of my head 14:14:59 1) schedule planning process 14:15:07 2) finding moderators for the slots 14:15:11 3) venue selection 14:15:14 We should add a section for those willing to help at meetups but not be a part of the bi-weekly meeting 14:15:20 4) venue date 14:15:33 shamail +1 14:15:34 food 14:15:46 hotel/discount group rate/etc 14:15:46 hotel discounts 14:16:20 4) MCing / intro sessions 14:16:25 optimum # of participants 14:16:33 evening event possibly 14:16:37 +1 MarkBaker 14:16:41 I went to the Philly one and that one was the one that overflowed the hosts facilities. Andrew Mitry said he could help based on that experience 14:16:52 was at comcast now at walmer 14:16:54 +1 MarkBaker should probably be a minimum number? 14:16:54 # of rooms in the venue 14:16:54 walmart 14:16:55 ah, good point MarkBaker - there's also scope in this group for talking about stuff bigger than individual events 14:16:57 it's not entirely down to just having a big venue either 14:17:03 such as, how to scale the events 14:17:12 there's an optimum number of people per session for effective communication 14:17:16 yep, probably cap... I think we want to leverage everything we've already learned 14:17:21 yeah, a good idea at the number of rooms we might want help 14:17:23 a) charge a token fee 14:17:29 b) have a token fee waiver as needed 14:17:30 I know it's a big concern I have with trying to host one here again 14:17:32 c) etc 14:17:34 so sorting out what that number is, making it into the schedule grid etc is within scope of this group 14:17:39 we have two big spaces, but not a lot of break out spots 14:17:45 fifieldt: and also, whether a few cycles down the line whether multiple distributed meetups makes sense rather than just the one 14:17:57 and how to manage multiple, and make sure nothing is missed 14:17:57 yup 14:18:02 we held breakouts in kumbaya circles in the cafe a couple years ago at Rax. 14:18:03 deciding that is in scope of this group, IMO 14:18:09 I would agree 14:18:13 mrhillsman, min is probably 20 - 30, max 150 - 200 14:18:35 dabukalam: we already went round that on the list a while back 14:18:37 I recall some support for a max of 150 at the austin talk three weeks ago 14:18:41 so the Manchester (or wherever that UK place was) had 100-150 aiui and it was a "good" meeting as well 14:18:47 I would say 150 is a good number 14:18:54 keeps the costs manageable 14:19:09 dc_mattj: +1 14:19:13 people can get to know each other, and the sessions are a good size for communication 14:19:13 working out the split between the venue, foundation crew, and this group with regards to logistics - such as making the wifi work - will be something we need to look at 14:19:26 I'm not sure the costs scale with the number (I guess it depends on what kind of participant sponsorship there is--free rooms vs conf hotel rooms) 14:19:38 +1 dc_mattj 14:19:53 (FYI, there is some beginnings of content on venue selection at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#Venue_Selection ) 14:20:08 med_ in my experience bigger conference venues end up being �40+ per head per day for catering 14:20:22 nod 14:20:26 ah, food. Good point. 14:20:34 I suspect keeping it at 150 is going to be hard without creating serious barriers. The success of previous meetups and word of mouth will only mean more people will attend in future 14:20:35 Manchester came out at around half that 14:20:53 dabukalam: it's also about keeping it focused properly 14:21:09 so do we think we want ONE mid-cycle or regional ones? 14:21:11 there were a lot of people wanting to come to Manchester who weren't operators or dev 14:21:13 I was going to say 150 seems like an effective number, but I agree the community is growing and we had a lot of angry folks who couldn't attend last time 14:21:16 again at the austin talk I leaned about a silicon valley one that got too many people on the list 14:21:21 it is easy to keep at 150 if you are as ruthless as dc_mattj 14:21:25 Philly was around 200 wasn't it? We're probably going to get larger turnouts in NE and northern CA 14:21:26 dc_mattj: right, so you end up with the same problem that the summits have begun to experience 14:21:34 (at a much larger scale) 14:21:49 this is an operators meeting 14:22:00 including folks from dev 14:22:15 as long as we are talking overall criteria for "where" - were do we stand on alternating geographies from the Summit 14:22:26 VW I like that idea 14:22:28 well we should definitely decide on a cap for the sake of baselining across the board 14:22:38 e.g. - Europe/Asia before a North American summit and vice versa? 14:22:49 VW +1, i think it would help get more people involved that may not be able to make it to summit 14:22:51 as a community we need to learn how to deal with popularity. It means considering multiple regional meets or accepting we will have big ons 14:22:51 ones 14:23:13 of course, that is always governed somewhat by who's willing to host :) 14:23:19 MarkBaker: or perhaps a multiple smaller ones? 14:23:24 personally my view is to try and keep it as one thing for as long as possible 14:23:34 there's a huge benefit from a wide constituency 14:23:47 philly appeared to be on the edge for what works in a single room 14:23:50 +1 14:24:01 where it's full participation, not a "show" like the keynotes at the main summit 14:24:10 we do do multiple rooms in the summit ... 14:24:17 +1 14:24:18 I think we potentially have a couple of offers on the table for venues right now 14:24:26 yeah - it's tough - could argue either way, but IDEALLY, you have working groups, carrying items from summit to IRC meetings to midcycle -etc 14:24:32 so pre Barcelona would be N.A.? 14:24:35 so I see the risk in spreading it around to too many events 14:24:37 I vote for Vancouver. :^) 14:24:38 yes civic hall nyc is 180 people main room and some breakout rooms 14:24:41 we do indeed have some offers 14:24:52 btw this discussion is looking excellent - I think in the past 12 minutes we've listed our year's worth of topics to attack and and solve :) 14:24:54 Milan and NY were the two I know of 14:25:10 as we're still in the Team aims/objectives/scope agenda item 14:25:14 any objections to moving to the next one 14:25:22 which is indeed about the next upcoming meetup 14:25:22 Milan as in Italy? 14:25:22 ? 14:25:22 fifieldt: +1 14:25:29 ^ 14:25:30 +1 14:25:30 fifieldt: nope, go ahead 14:25:30 VW: yes 14:25:39 #topic Upcoming mid-cycle Ops meetup 14:25:39 if so, I'd say we get a head start on the fall then ;) 14:25:40 Geographically I like keeping it 'opposite' the summits for soem value of oppose 14:25:50 sorry for the procedural interruption, do go ahead :) 14:25:51 +1 14:25:52 or winter actually 14:25:56 +1 jproulx 14:26:10 So, I think we need something in ~August 14:26:14 * med_ wonders who has a site in Milan.... may need to update my resume' 14:26:14 does that sound right to folks? 14:26:16 +1 14:26:23 yes fifieldt 14:26:24 +1 14:26:24 yeap 14:26:25 +1 14:26:28 +1 August 14:26:38 at this point, it will be a mad dash to plan and we shouldn't go much later than that 14:26:43 eThere's the Openstack East event in NYC in August 14:26:43 or we are right up on summit 14:26:46 +1 to Aug 14:26:50 need to be aware of conflicts or consider colocating 14:26:51 +1 14:26:54 OpenStack Days Texas Aug 25th 14:26:57 yup - vw is right on the sandwich factor 14:27:10 we do need to be aware of those events too 14:27:16 Could we possibly target the same week as OpenStackDay East? This would allow people to do two events if they are traveling 14:27:17 when is East, emccormick ? 14:27:24 shamail: +1 14:27:30 I'd definitely want to NOT consider too strongly regional event conflicts. I'm fine with considering mid-cycle project events as potential conflicts. 14:27:40 ie, nova mid-cyc, etc. 14:27:48 (NB: part of the date selection depends on venue availability) 14:27:50 med_ +1 14:27:57 since we were just in NA and headed to Europe I think ASia would be next, but having no offers and short time may be impractical this go round 14:28:09 NECTAR? 14:28:19 I brought up the NYC thing as a possible colocation thing more than an avoidance thing 14:28:21 haha, ask sorrison 14:28:26 North America, med_ 14:28:29 emccormick, understood. 14:28:30 i know we say opposite summit, but would it make more sense to line up with summit? 14:28:34 it would be nice to hit both events at once 14:28:35 jproulx: there were some potential issues raised in Austin about Asia with regards to language barriers 14:28:40 no mrhillsman 14:28:42 considering $$ 14:28:43 emccormick: +1 14:28:51 because there are those that can't travel some ways 14:28:55 so mihalis68 has some ideas that could be interesting 14:29:03 emccormick: +1 I like the idea of adjoining another event 14:29:04 so it's a double whammy if both are regionally the same in a 6 month period 14:29:14 well we can get civic hall early in august for two consecutive days. 180 people main hall 14:29:18 shintaro may have some ideas on asia, too 14:29:31 agreed, we had no representation in the Man meetup due to travel concerns. Asia would likely be the same. Not sure how we can better support the APAC folks but... 14:29:32 i was thinking more like some days before summit 14:29:51 but i gotcha 14:30:02 I need to find the venue in Tokyo 14:30:03 mrhillsman, the summit itself is already an ops meetup 14:30:03 mrhillsman we're alread at the summit though yes? 14:30:05 and more so in the future. 14:30:12 (For those new, OpenStack summits happen every 6 months in a rotation that's approx US-EU-US-Asia) 14:30:53 fifieldt: I think you suggested it at the summit, but I think it makes sense to follow something similar, with an offset 14:30:57 shintaro, I vaguely remember that tokyo day co-location was being looked into, but I understand that venue space in Tokyo is very difficult :) 14:31:17 $$$$¥¥¥¥¥¥ 14:31:34 we've also had the folks from best buy get in touch 14:31:35 APAC definitely has challenges, I'm not opposed to NYC this time and catching up with the hoped for rotation later 14:31:39 fifieldt: yes Tokyo Days is in June and we do not have enough room for this event 14:31:44 July 14:31:46 so, one of the key questions i have is 14:31:51 if we have multiple venue options 14:31:54 how do we choose? 14:31:56 NY would work well for EU folks 14:32:14 NYC or just NY State? 14:32:14 Openstack East is 8/23 - 8/24 (Tue., wed.). Could do Thu, Fri or have 1 day overlap with Mon., Tue. 14:32:20 fifieldt: you mean cheap and regional vs central and expensive? 14:32:23 naw 14:32:31 (side note: tokyo was less expensive for me than palo alto) 14:32:40 I didn't attend MAN because it was 2 days of travel time for a 2 day event, and that's coming from the US east coast 14:32:41 as in two or more awesome users, in the right geography we're looking at, come forward and offer to host 14:32:54 fifieldt: has that happened so far ? 14:32:59 how do we choose one over the other in a fair, transparent way that doesn't frustrate people 14:33:06 what about us so-so users? :^) 14:33:08 dc_mattj: it's been one of the crappiest things I've had to do 14:33:22 was deal with having to say no to people, based on behind-the-scenes dealings :) 14:33:23 promise them for the next cycle around ? 14:33:25 fifieldt, Condorcet? 14:33:25 fifieldt: vote? 14:33:25 fifieldt: I think we need to get a better idea of where people are to enable us to make this devision fairly 14:33:37 +1 14:33:40 I think I' 14:33:41 ve 14:33:43 decision or division? 14:33:49 decision :D 14:33:52 *decision 14:33:58 probably promised "next time" to about 3-4 folks, and probably just forgot to reply to others 14:34:04 lol 14:34:14 hmm - that is tough 14:34:23 so I'm hoping this group can come up with a proposal :) 14:34:30 I think it might makes sense to come up with some sort of scoring for each option as a filter pre-voting or to inform voting 14:34:38 one other thing to consider in this context is vendor neutrality 14:34:40 +1 14:34:45 +1 14:34:51 clayton + 14:34:59 So I would say that hosting venues hosted by users take preference over vendor venues 14:35:06 it's hard to vote in an informed way without information like "this venue is really small, but with a host that will cover all costs" 14:35:06 vs. operator neutrality 14:35:07 we love sponsors, but don't want the event to be overshadowed by one or other vendor 14:35:08 I liek the idea of having criteria we can score 14:35:09 in theory - if we can get a couple of mid-cicyles ahead in planing, we might even be able to solicit member imput 14:35:10 to the choices 14:35:11 Some clear desires have been expressed that I think have strong backing - rotating geography in opposition to main summit in terms of region 14:35:16 MarkBaker: dc_mattj: +1 14:35:27 is that fully agreed? 14:35:38 +1 if possible 14:35:45 +1 14:35:46 mihalis68: +1 14:35:49 I think we've also got to be pragmatic about what offers are on the table 14:35:52 re hosting 14:35:59 I think this group could lock in a region and a time range and then ask for proposals 14:36:00 seems like there are two topics/proposals on the table at once so I can't +1 until I know what we are voting on 14:36:04 I'd say geo preference is 'Strongly desirable' 14:36:21 +1 mihalis68 14:36:23 I anti-geo preference? 14:36:28 +1 on that 14:36:32 +1 for rotating geography 14:36:39 what do other folks think about an open call for proposals within a region>? 14:36:44 opposite summits 14:36:44 @fifieldt you can restate proposals and have a vote 14:37:00 +1 for proposals in a region 14:37:04 (I am still learning IRC!) 14:37:19 mihalis68: I think the meetbot has vote functionality somewhere 14:37:29 yes, fifieldt - I'm good with acall for proposals 14:37:32 +1 for proposals in a region 14:37:36 fifieldt: while I think this should remain as open a process as possible, considering our worries about sizing and non-operators/devs attending and using up important space, shouldn't we avoid promoting this widely? 14:38:02 so, an addendum then 14:38:03 Agree with making regional decisions and then considering proposals 14:38:04 eventbrite allows limited tickets. 14:38:11 ooh nice 14:38:14 med_: right, which doesn't help if we get 150 salespeople 14:38:21 and no operators can attend 14:38:21 is there a method/way to determine ops vs dev/non-ops? 14:38:30 not afaik 14:38:36 mrhillsman: I don't think discrimination is a good idea either 14:38:40 lol 14:38:46 :D 14:38:46 As much as that sounds interesting... I don't think we should go down the "determine worthiness" rabbit hole. 14:38:54 nope 14:38:56 Zucan: +1 14:38:59 worry about things when they happen 14:38:59 it's not discrimination or worthiness 14:39:02 ok, just to close off the venue selection topic quickly 14:39:06 it's simply a what you do 14:39:18 but i digress 14:39:23 1. This group, as an organ of community feedback, determines approximate dates for the ops midcycles 14:39:27 Last time you had a big thing at the top of the email saying basically "IF YOU'RE NOT AN OPERATOR, STAY HOME. THIS IS NOT FOR YOU". Did you end up with a bunch of sales people and noobs in Manchester? 14:39:36 2. This group, as an organ of community feedback, determines regions for the ops midcycles 14:39:52 Maybe that was why Manchester was half its normal size for a meetup? :) 14:40:02 * med_ feels like an organ at times.... generally appendix. 14:40:09 3. Once 2 &3 are decided, an open call for proposals will be sent out for hosts matching the criteria 14:40:20 2 & 3? 14:40:22