Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011

Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bhalevy@panasas.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18D13A67DF for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dOgiNixIXz8r for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod5og114.obsmtp.com (exprod5og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.0.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B608E3A684F for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([67.152.220.89]) by exprod5ob114.postini.com ([64.18.4.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTLOTsS+WYsUD6gCJmZg5AcGIMd8a0EPr@postini.com; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:46:09 PDT
Received: from lt.bhalevy.com ([172.17.3.222]) by daytona.int.panasas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:46:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4CB393B0.6010108@panasas.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:46:08 -0400
From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
References: <9C0FE01C-2ECC-468D-AC32-524191536058@netapp.com> <55D5676A-E5CE-4BF6-82D9-C21B7D44CAAE@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <55D5676A-E5CE-4BF6-82D9-C21B7D44CAAE@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2010 22:46:08.0909 (UTC) FILETIME=[189C2BD0:01CB6996]
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:44:58 -0000

On 2010-10-11 18:19, Thomas Haynes wrote:
> I've had some offline discussions and it appears that I may not have
> been clear enough on the proposal for Paris. The question is whether
> or not we believe enough people/companies will be present to have
> an interesting mix of implementations in order to be effective in
> testing? (And yes, the whole utility is not testing, but it is a close
> enough yardstick.)
> 
> We typically have 3 people present at each BakeAThon from Europe
> or Israel. We happened to have 4 this time.
> 
> We have 3 or 4 people outside of those who have been vocal in the
> past about having the event in Paris. We even proposed that the
> BAT that was held in Ann Arbor be held in Paris this year. That never
> gained any real traction.
> 
> I count that there might have been 30 people testing in Boston - there
> were more who showed up for talks or who were registered but did
> not attend.
> 
> I think a normal attendance number is 20 people.
> 
> In the past, we have had just one BAT in a year because the worth
> was low - it wasn't a matter of cost, but because we didn't have
> enough to test. I actually thought we were going to only have one
> BAT in 2010, but the Linux developers in particular wanted
> the second event.
> 
> And we have certainly seen organizations manage cost by reducing
> attendance.
> 
> So if organizations commit to sending some developers, but not all,
> what is the minimal mass in both technologies and people we need
> to be effective?
> 
> I don't know the answers, but I do not want to see a BAT fail because
> there is not enough representation and then see a drop off in attendance
> in the next event.
> 
> So why don't we gather some data:
> 
> 1) Do you plan to attend the June 2011 BAT if it is in Paris?
> 

yes

> 2) Do you plan to attend the June 2011 BAT if it is at CITI?
> 

yes

> 3) If you said yes to both, which one do you think you would get
> the most worth from?
> 

assuming attendance will be similar, at least in number of
companies (not individuals necessarily) attending, I think
both will work well.

> 4) Did you attend the June 2010 BAT at CITI?

yes

Benny

> 
> I'm asking you to answer as an individual and not as a company. But
> please remember you need to secure funding from your company.
> I.e., don't say yes to Paris because you want to visit it, say yes if
> you know you will most likely be present. Also, if normally two of
> you from your company attend and you know that your management
> will only support one going to Paris, please reflect that in your
> responses.
> 
> If you don't feel comfortable replying to list, just send your reply to me.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4