* Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] Killing LSFMMBPF
[not found] <email@example.com>
@ 2020-03-07 3:14 ` Steve French
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Steve French @ 2020-03-07 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josef Bacik
Cc: lsf-pc, Linux FS Devel, linux-mm, linux-xfs, Btrfs BTRFS, bpf,
linux-ext4, linux-block, CIFS
Don't forget about Vault - there were some very useful hallway
discussions at Vault this year as well ... even if a bit smaller than
it should be ...
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:36 AM Josef Bacik <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This has been a topic that I've been thinking about a lot recently, mostly
> because of the giant amount of work that has been organizing LSFMMBPF. I was
> going to wait until afterwards to bring it up, hoping that maybe it was just me
> being done with the whole process and that time would give me a different
> perspective, but recent discussions has made it clear I'm not the only one.
> LSFMMBPF is not useful to me personally, and not an optimal use of the
> communities time. The things that we want to get out of LSFMMBPF are (generally)
> 1) Reach consensus on any multi-subsystem contentious changes that have come up
> over the past year.
> 2) Inform our fellow developers of new things that we are working on that we
> would like help with, or need to think about for the upcoming year.
> 3) "Hallway track". We are after all a community, and I for one like spending
> time with developers that I don't get to interact with on a daily basis.
> 4) Provide a way to help integrate new developers into the community with face
> time. It is far easier to work with people once you can put a face to a name,
> and this is especially valuable for new developers.
> These are all really good goals, and why we love the idea of LSFMMBPF. But
> having attended these things every year for the last 13 years, it has become
> less and less of these things, at least from my perspective. A few problems (as
> I see them) are
> 1) The invitation process. We've tried many different things, and I think we
> generally do a good job here, but the fact is if I don't know somebody I'm not
> going to give them a very high rating, making it difficult to actually bring in
> new people.
> 2) There are so many of us. Especially with the addition of the BPF crowd we
> are now larger than ever. This makes problem #1 even more apparent, even if I
> weighted some of the new people higher who's slot should they take instead? I
> have 0 problems finding 20 people in the FS community who should absolutely be
> in the room. But now I'm trying to squeeze in 1-5 extra people. Propagate that
> across all the tracks and now we're at an extra 20ish people.
> 3) Half the people I want to talk to aren't even in the room. This may be a
> uniquely file system track problem, but most of my work is in btrfs, and I want
> to talk to my fellow btrfs developers. But again, we're trying to invite an
> entire community, so many of them simply don't request invitations, or just
> don't get invited.
> 3) Sponsorships. This is still the best way to get to all of the core
> developers, so we're getting more and more sponsors in order to buy their slots
> to get access to people. This is working as intended, and I'm not putting down
> our awesome sponsors, but this again adds to the amount of people that are
> showing up at what is supposed to be a working conference.
> 4) Presentations. 90% of the conference is 1-2 people standing at the front of
> the room, talking to a room of 20-100 people, with only a few people in the
> audience who cares. We do our best to curate the presentations so we're not
> wasting peoples time, but in the end I don't care what David Howells is doing
> with mount, I trust him to do the right thing and he really just needs to trap
> Viro in a room to work it out, he doesn't need all of us.
> 5) Actually planning this thing. I have been on the PC for at least the last 5
> years, and this year I'm running the whole thing. We specifically laid out
> plans to rotate in new blood so this sort of thing stopped happening, and this
> year we've done a good job of that. However it is a giant amount of work for
> anybody involved, especially for the whole conference chair. Add in something
> like COVID-19 to the mix and now I just want to burn the whole thing to the
> ground. Planning this thing is not free, it does require work and effort.
> So what do I propose? I propose we kill LSFMMBPF.
> Many people have suggested this elsewhere, but I think we really need to
> seriously consider it. Most of us all go to the Linux Plumbers conference. We
> could accomplish our main goals with Plumbers without having to deal with all of
> the above problems.
> 1) The invitation process. This goes away. The people/companies that want to
> discuss things with the rest of us can all get to plumbers the normal way. We
> get new blood that we may miss through the invitation process because they can
> simply register for Plumbers on their own.
> 2) Presentations. We can have track miniconfs where we still curate talks, but
> there could be much less of them and we could just use the time to do what
> LSFMMBPF was meant to do, put us all in a room so we can hack on things together.
> 3) BOFs. Now all of the xfs/btrfs/ext4 guys can show up, because again they
> don't have to worry about some invitation process, and now real meetings can
> happen between people that really want to talk to each other face to face.
> 4) Planning becomes much simpler. I've organized miniconf's at plumbers before,
> it is far simpler than LSFMMBPF. You only have to worry about one thing, is
> this presentation useful. I no longer have to worry about am I inviting the
> right people, do we have enough money to cover the space. Is there enough space
> for everybody? Etc.
> I think this is worth a discussion at the very least. Maybe killing LSFMMBPF is
> too drastic, maybe there are some other ideas that would address the same
> problems. I'd love to hear the whole communities thoughts on this, because
> after all this is supposed to be a community event, and we should all be heard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, back to index
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <email@example.com>
2020-03-07 3:14 ` [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] Killing LSFMMBPF Steve French
Linux-CIFS Archive on lore.kernel.org
Archives are clonable:
git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/0 linux-cifs/git/0.git
# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
public-inbox-init -V2 linux-cifs linux-cifs/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs \
Example config snippet for mirrors
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git