No group tracks at Connect
dsaxena at linaro.org
Fri Apr 20 19:20:48 UTC 2012
On 19 April 2012 12:58, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19 April 2012 14:47, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis <kiko at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
>>>>>> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away
>>>>>> with team tracks all together and just have topic tracks. This would
>>>>>> align with our topic based approach to things now, and would be a way
>>>>>> to breakdown our silo's. The topic track would be lead by a topic
>>>>>> champion. What do people think?
>>>>> I ask myself whether in practice it makes a difference. In practice, at
>>>>> Connect, you want somebody to own a certain set of sessions. Splitting
>>>>> this by team or by topic seems to have equal drawbacks on either side.
>>>> I'm not really sure if it makes a difference at the end of the day.
>>>> Also, are we really talking about topic tracks or sessions here? W/o a
>>>> CFP asking for externally developed presentations, I'm not sure we can
>>>> end up with many talks about the same topics.
>>>> We're planning on some training sessions for Linaro noobs and also for
>>>> what I hope will be a large contingent of member engineers from China,
>>>> India, and Korea offices. Should "Training" be a separate track?
>>>> Also to clarify, regardless of whether we go down this path or not, we
>>>> will still have time for hacking sessions?
>>> I think its actually makes the hacking sessions better. Why have team
>>> hacking rooms? We should have topic hacking rooms where each tiger
>>> team meets each other and starts to solve the problems they've talked
>>> about in the topic planning session.
>> I dunno. I think a lot of the work we are doing in the groups does not
>> directly overlap, and when it does (i.e, platform integration level)
>> it's as easy as grabbing the right person. From my experience at prior
>> connects, a lot of the decisions around common infrastructure happened
>> in the hacking rooms where folks could gather around there computers
>> and boards in a shared space. Spreading us across rooms by topic areas
>> would loose that cohesiveness that I think is really key to the work
>> that happens at Connect.
> I think some of that is just a reflection of our team track
> organization. Consider a common goal like:
> Unify all Kernels
> That's a big topic, but if
> Andy Green
> LAVA PoC
> Ubuntu PoC
> Were all on the Unify all Kernels tiger team, they could use connect
> to hammer this out. The hacking rooms could then change mid week for
> other topic hacking sessions.
OK, that makes sense. Another one would be Android + DT...get your
team and the DT folks from KWG together for half a day to hash out
anything that's needed. In essence these become extended summit
sessions. We need to keep 1-2 rooms open for general hacking in this
case for folks who may want to just go deep dive into an area they are
More information about the linaro-dev