On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:25AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:16:21 +0100 Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 01:06 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > >> The last couple of years there's been roughly 13 seats sold to sponsors,
> > >> which is somewhere in the order or 15%. Even if we assume that say 50%
> > >> of those seats have been given to relevant participants, thats still a
> > >> lot of waste.
> > >
> > > The sad fact is that putting on a summit costs money. If the attendees
> > > themselves don't pay then it has to come from somewhere. The current
> > > funding mechanism is open for discussion, like the agenda ... what did
> > > you have in mind?
> >
> > I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
> > KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
> > seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary.
As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten
an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot
people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet,
occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups
are fantastic, but it doesn't really compare with being there and
participating in discussions, either hallway or main room. Besides
consuming oxygen, what's the real concern here?
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & http://www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com
Matt Domsch wrote:
> As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten
> an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot
> people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet,
> occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups
> are fantastic, but it doesn't really compare with being there and
> participating in discussions, either hallway or main room. Besides
> consuming oxygen, what's the real concern here?
Hi Matt,
I don't think sponsor slots per se are damaging, the problem is that
they take up a seat. Combined with this fanatic 'we must only allow our
favorite 80 elite people into the room' idea. In this situation sponsor
slots are costly and often a waste at the technical level. Same goes
with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody
seems to like to talk about that issue :)
Cheers,
Jes
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:21:35AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody
> seems to like to talk about that issue :)
If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
that there's underhand things going on.
Between this, and the constant nagging from some community members
to find out if they'd made the cut (nearly EVERY DAY for a month),
I sometimes wonder why I volunteered. Perhaps because like others
on the PC, I felt it wasn't fair to burden Ted with all the workload.
Remember that we're all volunteers here, and the suggestion that
we're all doing it just to ensure attendance is just unfair.
All the PC committee members last year were on the same voting sheet
as everyone else. Theoretically, I could have given low votes to
Andi, Ted and everyone else on the PC, but that would be ridiculous
given the work they do, and the value they've added to previous summits.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
Dave Jones wrote:
> If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
> attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
> that there's underhand things going on.
Dave,
I'm sorry you feel that way, that is not the intention of it. I raise
the issue of the number of members, and particularly the fact that seats
are sold off to sponsors to the level they are. If we didn't
continuously get touted that this has to be restricted to death to the
point of being constructive this wouldn't be a problem, but thats where
it is.
Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when
it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it
really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how
many proposals? they handled it with a 7-8 member group I believe, and
yes I know Rusty did bitch about having to read a couple of hundred
papers, but they did pretty darn well.
> All the PC committee members last year were on the same voting sheet
> as everyone else. Theoretically, I could have given low votes to
> Andi, Ted and everyone else on the PC, but that would be ridiculous
> given the work they do, and the value they've added to previous summits.
If a person on the committee qualifies under the technical requirements
decided upon by the committee, then obviously that person should be
invited too.
Cheers,
Jes
> If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
> attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
> that there's underhand things going on.
There's only once voice I can hear moaning about the process. The same
voice I seem to remember moaning about for the past few years.
Alan
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:49:11 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when
> it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it
> really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how
> many proposals? they handled it with a 7-8 member group I believe, and
> yes I know Rusty did bitch about having to read a couple of hundred
> papers, but they did pretty darn well.
I believe in that same post, I pointed out that throughout the prep
period, all members *did* have a valuable contribution. Don't use half
the info to make a point, please.
And for paper & proposal reviews, also having been on the OLS program
committee for several years, I can guarantee you that these are two different
birds. Paper proposals are more static, have a more or less intrinsic
value that you can assess at a single reading. KS is *much* more dynamic,
and would be just another conference if it weren't. KS is about current
issues, and actions to address those issues. The *actions* part is a lot
harder than the paper reading portion. Don't confused KS with a conference;
it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
gerrit
Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
> Don't confused KS with a conference;
> it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions
(perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-summits" that have cropped
up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way
there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if
we eventually end up meeting everywhere.
That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other
conference (like OLS.)
-hpa
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:30:43 PST, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
> > Don't confused KS with a conference;
> > it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
>
> ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
>
> Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions
> (perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-summits" that have cropped
> up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way
> there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if
> we eventually end up meeting everywhere.
>
> That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other
> conference (like OLS.)
Are you thinking something like "core VM/scheduler/locking/etc." as one set of
not-quite-so-mini-summit, and a "block IO/storage drivers/filesystems" as another,
"arch maintainers" as another, and "all the nutty drivers and their writers" as
perhaps a fourth? In other words, some semi-logical grouping of issues
each as more free floating meetings? Or did I miss your suggestion?
Easy on the judgement on practicality, btw. For instance, FAST is going
to try to do some part of one of these - possibly larger than a networking
mini-summit in scope but otherwise with similar goals.
I think there are some options to consider for hosting some targetted
working meetings in some of these areas, including the examples already
given for some mini-summits. Some sponsors might help set up mini-summits
(and some have in the psat), including considering the Linux Foundation as
they do with the Desktop Architects Meeting (my favorite DAM meeting!).
The challenge is to figure out what people want to have happen, the see if
we can make it happen.
gerrit
On 1/31/07 3:30 PM, "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
>> Don't confused KS with a conference;
>> it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
>
> ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
>
> Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions
> (perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-summits" that have cropped
> up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way
> there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if
> we eventually end up meeting everywhere.
>
> That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other
> conference (like OLS.)
I have discussed this idea with a few people in the past. One could organize
a set of interlocking / overlapping mini summits and end with a joint day
for everyone. This would almost certainly create some idle time for almost
every attendee - but obviously that can be filled by a hack fest or
something.
I don't think this could be organized for September (actually, I don't know
how firm the contracts with the facilities are at this point), but certainly
something we could plan for next year. One nice side-effect would be to
allow for an overall larger group - you could have 30-40 people per "track"
and maybe 100-120 total. Yes, this makes the conversation on the last day
harder, but it would still stay productive and interactive for the most
part.
/D