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?
Hi Zach,
Yes, this is a recurring discussion before Connects. Almost every time, we try to go Topic based, and each time we end up cycling back to Team Tracks. So, if we can get a good set of Topics, we're open to change....
Thx
Stephen
-----Original Message----- From: Zach Pfeffer [mailto:zach.pfeffer@linaro.org] Sent: 18 April 2012 16:44 To: Stephen Doel; Alexander Sack; Christian Reis; Ilias Biris; Loïc Minier Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org; linaro-android Subject: No group tracks at Connect
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?
On 18 April 2012 11:40, Stephen Doel stephen.doel@linaro.org wrote:
I saw some good topics from Kiko, I'll create a few.
I put together:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/document/d/1CgFZASgXfj4lQsBppjNHgF7XZ70...
...for people to spitball.
We could even have shirts for the topic champions.
I like the idea of topic focused sessions, not sure I'm sold on a complete switch.
I've got an initial list of top sessions at https://wiki.linaro.org/TomGall/DraftPlan/2012-2QLC above and beyond that sessions I've already proposed.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Stephen Doel stephen.doel@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2012 12:05, Tom Gall tom.gall@linaro.org wrote:
Hmm.. link looks broken.
What I'm thinking is that we can come up with little tiger teams at or before Connect. People could volenteer to champion things and the tiger teams would consist of members from multiple teams. For instance your audio on Panda could become a topic and we could create a little tiger team like:
Kurt Amit Jassi
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Try again. I sent the email before I hit save :-)
+1
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, David Rusling david.rusling@linaro.orgwrote:
where are kikos topics?
On 18 April 2012 15:15, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
They were in a previous email. I dropped them into the Google doc.
On 18 April 2012 12:45, David Rusling david.rusling@linaro.org wrote:
Hmmm. I prefer Kiko's topics, these can also be grouped under the TL's. Each time we've tried this, we've ended up with WG / team driven tracks as before...
I think Kiko's topics are good too. Perhaps if we also added, will demonstrate on platform X and test with Y in LAVA then platform would be able to lend a hand.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
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.
However, now that I look at this list I wonder why you didn't suggest additional topics for the listing for the Connect website in the thread I started -- I see at least a few which might have been appropriate:
Infrastructure Monitoring Continuous Integration Making Debug Easier Power Measurement A Unified Android/Ubuntu Distribution Community Engagement
Putting it into a separate document is scattering, not gathering ;-)
On 19 April 2012 10:53, Christian Robottom Reis kiko@linaro.org wrote:
I just like working from a Google doc instead of email so I plugged everything in their. Figured others could just use it as a scratch pad. Is there another location that gives a complete list of all the topics from all the leads? Anyway, my experience with big.LITTLE showed me how awesome it is to have a great topic that each team sends engineers to and is lead by someone who may not be a tech lead at all, but is the domain expert. I figured if we had all the topics in a global view we could see what potential tiger teams could form and prioritize before we got to Hong Kong.
On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis kiko@linaro.org wrote:
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?
~Deepak
On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
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.
How cool would it be, the big.LITTLE tiger team would all have big.LITTLE shirts, The BSP team would have shirts, etc...
~Deepak
On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
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.
~Deepak
On 19 April 2012 14:47, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
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
Andrea Mathieu Lee Andy Green Tixy Vishal LAVA PoC Ubuntu PoC etc...
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.
~Deepak
On 19 April 2012 12:58, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
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 working on.
~Deepak
On 20 April 2012 14:20, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
Yeah, cool. I'll get this and other topics scheduled.
~Deepak
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Another android + MMWG one Android audio latency. There is a thought that changing the audio device drivers to make use of dma-buf etc that could be a very good improvement.
All, thank you for a lively discussion. I think that there's some very good ideas floating about. It's clear that we all care passionately about make Linaro Connect as good as it can possibly be. Some comments:
[1] What is the problem that we're trying to solve? It is, in my view, is trying to ensure that everyone important to each discussion is able to be there so that the right decisions take place I saw some clashes at the last event where meetings were empty or moved so that the right people were there. I think that this was because we didn't look across the booking 'silos' before the week itself Linux kernel intersects most of our problem areas and that makes the kernel experts a scarce resource and a critical path on scheduling
[2] It's a slice and dice problem with most things being group based. I don't think that each WG needs to stay together for the morning (technical) sessions, but they do for the afternoon hacking sessions (mostly) Zach's point about avoiding silos is a good one
[3] We give the mandate to solve 'heavy lifting' problems to particular groups The graphics WG is the right 'center of gravity' for UMM, for example but the overlap between groups can be quite large (especially platforms which is where the technologies come together)
[4] Kiko's suggestion was to group the sessions by topic (big.LITTLE) and area (architecture) and Zach's suggestion was to have topic champion (continuous integration). Practically, some of this is already happening, for example with Amit pulling together all the big.LITTLE sessions (switcher and MP).
Here's my suggestion:
[1] Take Kiko's 'table' as the basis and transcribe it into the Connect planning spreadsheets maintained by Arwen etc. That gives us {topic, area, contents} [2] Nominate and agree champions / engineering teams to own each topic (add two columns {champion, team}. The champions could be the TL, they could be nominated by them, they don't have to work in the team that 'owns' the topic. [3] Have the champions own creating the sessions and ensuring that the right people (key decision makers) are signed up. In effect, one of their roles is to work across silos.
Let's leave aside how the summit tool could show a schedule by topic or whether we'd have 'topic leader' shirts made for now.
I'm happy to own [1] and support [2] and [3].
Makes sense?
Dave
David Rusling, CTO
Linaro Lockton House Clarendon Rd Cambridge CB2 8FH
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
All, I've created and shared the Connection Sessions spreadsheet, you can find it here - https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnK-Uyci_D20dFlUX1.... Arwen is happy that that spreadsheet will be used for the session planning. I've added some topics and champions, please contact me to arrange more / discuss how best to organise things moving forward. If you want a hint, see what Amit's done...
Dave
On 23 Apr 2012, at 16:47, David Rusling wrote:
On 24 April 2012 03:22, David Rusling david.rusling@linaro.org wrote:
What are the responsibilities of the champion vs those of the session lead?
~Deepak
On 25 April 2012 03:47, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
No difference. The champion is the session lead. The "champion" is just the guy or girl that's going to see topic X of general goal Y through to the end. They don't necessarily perform all the work, they just make sure its getting done and guides the general direction, etc...
~Deepak
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
Nothing, we're just creating some extra naming for the same things :-) Tiger, champion, all funny.
Cheers,
All,
My understanding was the session lead is not necessarily the champion. The champion is the 'guru' or 'owner' of the topic, and the session lead is exactly that… the session lead. There are a number of sessions covering various areas of one topic potentially? Please do correct me if this is wrong.
Regards, -- Arwen Donaghey Events Manager
T: +44 1223 TBC | M: +44 7791 279 521 Suite 220 | The Quorum | Barnwell Road | Cambridge | CB2 8FH Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog Registered Number: 07180318 | VAT Number: 990 0273 24
On 25 Apr 2012, at 03:11, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
See my earlier email. They can be different or the same it's up to you...
Dave
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Apr 2012, at 05:50, Arwen Donaghey arwen.donaghey@linaro.org wrote:
Funny, I took champion to be the equivalent of the sponsor of a requirement (i.e. to champion the topic at the TSC level). I guess we'd better be more explicit in our nomenclature.
cheers, jesse
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:16 PM, David Rusling david.rusling@linaro.org wrote:
Facilitator :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitator
I know I am adding my 2 cents a little late, but there I dropped it in the collection plate.
Amber
On 25 April 2012 11:40, Jesse Barker jesse.barker@linaro.org wrote:
Champion arranges the meeting the session lead runs it, they can be the same person
Dave
Sent from my iPad
On 24 Apr 2012, at 23:17, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Deepak Saxena dsaxena@linaro.org wrote:
+1
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Christian Robottom Reis kiko@linaro.org wrote:
I share the same opinion, as I'm that sure if it'll actually make a difference at the end of the day. Currently we were organising ourselves based on tracks (teams), and most tracks had their own projects, without shared effort with other teams.
Even when we had shared sessions, they all went well, as most of the time people knew what had to be done (as we also had sessions and tracks that were cross teams, like most summits we had).
Cheers,
On 19 April 2012 14:29, Ricardo Salveti ricardo.salveti@linaro.org wrote:
I think it makes a huge practical difference to have topics tracks instead of team tracks.
1. Topic tracks break down silos, team tracks encourage silos 2. Topic tracks can be aligned and attended by TSC reps, TSC members could even be the topic champion. In team tracks, topics may be spread out over multiple sessions 3. Topic track goals can be established clearly before connect and those goals can be reviewed at the end of connect.
Cheers,
Ricardo Salveti de Araujo
-
Alexander Sack -
Amber Graner -
Arwen Donaghey -
Christian Robottom Reis -
David Rusling -
Deepak Saxena -
Jesse Barker -
Ricardo Salveti -
Stephen Doel -
Tom Gall -
Zach Pfeffer