Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] Killing LSFMMBPF

[Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1818 bytes --]

On Fri, 2020-03-06 at 10:56 -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> The problem with Plumbers is that it's really, really full.  Not
> having invitations doesn't magically go away; Plumbers last year had
> to deal with long waitlist, and strugglinig to make sure that all of
> the critical people who need be present so that the various Miniconfs
> could be successful.
> 
> This is why I've been pushing so hard for a second Linux systems
> focused event in the first half of the year.  I think if we colocate
> the set of topics which are currently in LSF/MM, the more file system
> specific presentations, the ext4/xfs/btrfs mini-summits/working
> sessions, and the maintainer's summit / kernel summit, we would have
> critical mass.  And I am sure there will be *plenty* of topics left
> over for Plumbers.

That sounds like a good idea to me, as well.

Instead of trying to invite "all the useful people" on
a few fixed topics, which LSF/MM did very well, but which
the Linux community has long outgrown, resulting in us
being unable to invite some very good people, we can turn
things on its head a little organization wise.

We can host a number of (half day?) mini conferences on
various Linux kernel topics, maybe still with some focus
around LSF/MM/IO, and have a small number of general track
discussion sessions.

Once the topics of the mini conferences have been chosen,
people can figure out whether or not they want to attend
that year.

This could help us avoid the "oops, we couldn't invite two
of the people who really should have been here for this 
discussion" issue that has been difficult to avoid with 
LSF/MM having more interest, and more topics, than available
slots for people to attend.

TL;DR: decide on topics, not invitees.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]