[LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Jerome Glisse]

Did i miss preliminary agenda somewhere ? In previous year i think
there use to be one by now :)

Cheers,
Jérôme

Re: [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Jens Axboe]

On 4/25/19 2:00 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> Did i miss preliminary agenda somewhere ? In previous year i think
> there use to be one by now :)

You should have received an email from LF this morning with a subject
of:

LSFMM 2019: 8 Things to Know Before You Arrive!

which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk

-- 
Jens Axboe

[LSF/MM TOPIC] Lightning round?

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:03:34PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk

It looks like there are still quite a few open slots on Thursday?
Could we perhaps schedule a session for lightning talks?

I've got at least one thing that I'm hoping to be able to plug as a
lightning round topic.  Folks may remember that a year or two ago I
had given an LSF/MM talk about changes to the block layer to support
inline encryption engines[1] (where the data gets encrypted/decrypted
between the DMA engine and the storage device, typically EMCC/UFS
flash).

[1]  https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=148190956210784&w=2

Between the Android team really trying to get aligned with upstream,
and multiple SOC vendors interested in providing inline encryption
support in hardware, we (finally) have a few engineers who have been
on implementing this design for the past few months.  If all goes
well, hopefully RFC patches will be published on linux-block,
linux-fsdevel, and linux-fscrypto by early next week.  Assuming this
happens on schedule, it would be perfect for a lightning talk, with
the goal of commending this patch series for feedback.

						- Ted

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Lightning round?

[Jens Axboe]

On 4/25/19 3:19 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:03:34PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk
> 
> It looks like there are still quite a few open slots on Thursday?
> Could we perhaps schedule a session for lightning talks?

Yes good idea, I've added it. Like previous years, I imagine the
schedule will remain fluid, both as we go into the conference, but also
during. So we can always add and/or move things around.

> I've got at least one thing that I'm hoping to be able to plug as a
> lightning round topic.  Folks may remember that a year or two ago I
> had given an LSF/MM talk about changes to the block layer to support
> inline encryption engines[1] (where the data gets encrypted/decrypted
> between the DMA engine and the storage device, typically EMCC/UFS
> flash).
> 
> [1]  https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=148190956210784&w=2
> 
> Between the Android team really trying to get aligned with upstream,
> and multiple SOC vendors interested in providing inline encryption
> support in hardware, we (finally) have a few engineers who have been
> on implementing this design for the past few months.  If all goes
> well, hopefully RFC patches will be published on linux-block,
> linux-fsdevel, and linux-fscrypto by early next week.  Assuming this
> happens on schedule, it would be perfect for a lightning talk, with
> the goal of commending this patch series for feedback.

Agree

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Lightning round?

[Michal Hocko]

On Thu 25-04-19 17:19:06, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:03:34PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk
> 
> It looks like there are still quite a few open slots on Thursday?

Please note that the agenda is still not finalized. I do not know about
other tracks but MM is not complete.

> Could we perhaps schedule a session for lightning talks?

I am pretty sure there will be some room for that as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 4/25/19 10:03 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/25/19 2:00 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> Did i miss preliminary agenda somewhere ? In previous year i think
>> there use to be one by now :)
> 
> You should have received an email from LF this morning with a subject
> of:
> 
> LSFMM 2019: 8 Things to Know Before You Arrive!
> 
> which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk

In previous years years there also used to be an attendee list, which is
now an empty tab. Is that intentional due to GDPR?

Thanks,
Vlastimil

Re: [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Martin K. Petersen]

Vlastimil,

> In previous years years there also used to be an attendee list, which
> is now an empty tab. Is that intentional due to GDPR?

Yes.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

Re: [Lsf] [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 06:46 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Vlastimil,
> 
> > In previous years years there also used to be an attendee list,
> > which is now an empty tab. Is that intentional due to GDPR?
> 
> Yes.

Actually, GDPR doesn't require this.  What it requires is informed
consent and legitimate purpose (and since LSF/MM usually publishes the
attendee list for attendee co-ordination, that's a legitimate purpose).
 If you look at the LF form you filled in, you already gave "informed
consent": it was the "receive email from sponsors or partners".  That's
an agreement to share your email address.  This is also sufficient
consent to share with attendees since they're also "event partners".

Next year, simply expand the blurb to "sponsors, partners and
attendees" to make it more clear ... or better yet separate them so
people can opt out of partner spam and still be on the attendee list.

James

Re: [Lsf] [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Martin K. Petersen]

James,

> Next year, simply expand the blurb to "sponsors, partners and
> attendees" to make it more clear ... or better yet separate them so
> people can opt out of partner spam and still be on the attendee list.

We already made a note that we need an "opt-in to be on the attendee
list" as part of the registration process next year. That's how other
conferences go about it...

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

Re: [Lsf] [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 07:36 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> James,
> 
> > Next year, simply expand the blurb to "sponsors, partners and
> > attendees" to make it more clear ... or better yet separate them so
> > people can opt out of partner spam and still be on the attendee
> > list.
> 
> We already made a note that we need an "opt-in to be on the attendee
> list" as part of the registration process next year. That's how other
> conferences go about it...

But for this year, I'd just assume the "event partners" checkbox covers
publication of attendee data to attendees, because if you assume the
opposite, since you've asked no additional permission of your speakers
either, that would make publishing the agenda a GDPR violation.

James

Re: [Lsf] [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Martin K. Petersen]

James,

> But for this year, I'd just assume the "event partners" checkbox
> covers publication of attendee data to attendees, because if you
> assume the opposite, since you've asked no additional permission of
> your speakers either, that would make publishing the agenda a GDPR
> violation.

Speakers have proposed a topic by posting a message to a public mailing
list. Whereas not all attendees have indicated their desire to attend in
a public forum.

I don't think there's a problem publishing the list of people that sent
an ATTEND. My concern is the ones that didn't. And if the attendee list
is not comprehensive, I am not sure how helpful it is.

From a more practical perspective, I also don't have access to whether
people clicked the "event partners" box or not during registration.
Although I can reach out to LF and see whether I can get access to that
information.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

Re: [Lsf] [LSF/MM] Preliminary agenda ? Anyone ... anyone ? Bueller ?

[Jonathan Adams]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:36 AM Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> James,
>
> > Next year, simply expand the blurb to "sponsors, partners and
> > attendees" to make it more clear ... or better yet separate them so
> > people can opt out of partner spam and still be on the attendee list.
>
> We already made a note that we need an "opt-in to be on the attendee
> list" as part of the registration process next year. That's how other
> conferences go about it...

But there was an explicit checkbox to being on the attendance list in
the registration form, on the second page:

By submitting this registration you consent to The Linux’s
Foundation’s communication with you with respect to the event or
services to which this registration pertains.
* The Linux Foundation Communications ...
* Sponsor Communications    ...
* Attendee Directory
     By checking here, you opt-in to being listed in the event’s
online attendee directory. Some of your registration data will be made
available to other event attendees in the directory (name, title,
company name only)

Why isn't that sufficient?

Cheers,
- jonathan

Scheduling conflicts

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:03:34PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/25/19 2:00 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > Did i miss preliminary agenda somewhere ? In previous year i think
> > there use to be one by now :)
> 
> You should have received an email from LF this morning with a subject
> of:
> 
> LSFMM 2019: 8 Things to Know Before You Arrive!
> 
> which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk

The schedule continues to evolve ... I would very much like to have
Christoph Hellwig in the room for the Eliminating Tail Pages discussion,
but he's now scheduled to speak in a session at the same time (16:00
Tuesday).  I assume there'll be time for agenda-bashing at 9am tomorrow?

Re: Scheduling conflicts

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 29-04-19 16:54:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:03:34PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 4/25/19 2:00 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > Did i miss preliminary agenda somewhere ? In previous year i think
> > > there use to be one by now :)
> > 
> > You should have received an email from LF this morning with a subject
> > of:
> > 
> > LSFMM 2019: 8 Things to Know Before You Arrive!
> > 
> > which also includes a link to the schedule. Here it is:
> > 
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z1pDL-XeUT1ZwMWrBL8T8q3vtSqZpLPgF3Bzu_jejfk
> 
> The schedule continues to evolve ... I would very much like to have
> Christoph Hellwig in the room for the Eliminating Tail Pages discussion,
> but he's now scheduled to speak in a session at the same time (16:00
> Tuesday).  I assume there'll be time for agenda-bashing at 9am tomorrow?

I have swapped slots at 16:00 and 16:30 so there shouldn't be any
conflict now. Let me know if that doesn't fit.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs