No group tracks at Connect

Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer at
Fri Apr 20 21:17:43 UTC 2012

On 20 April 2012 14:20, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena at> wrote:
> On 19 April 2012 12:58, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at> wrote:
>> On 19 April 2012 14:47, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena at> wrote:
>>> On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at> wrote:
>>>> On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena at> wrote:
>>>>> On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis <kiko at> 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
>> Andrea
>> Mathieu
>> Lee
>> Andy Green
>> Tixy
>> Vishal
>> 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.
> 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.

Yeah, cool. I'll get this and other topics scheduled.

> ~Deepak

Zach Pfeffer
Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro:!/linaroorg -

More information about the linaro-dev mailing list