Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011

"Sorin Faibish" <sfaibish@emc.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sfaibish@emc.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 D68C13A6B93 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.373, 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 IOW-rWbcxG7h for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B1A3A6B9B for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o9BNIpSo032564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:18:51 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:18:43 -0400
Received: from sfaibish1.corp.emc.com (AUTGLEEH14L1C.corp.emc.com [10.4.9.230] (may be forged)) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o9BNHj00026810; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:17:45 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:17:54 -0400
To: "Thomas Haynes" <thomas@netapp.com>, nfsv4@ietf.org
From: "Sorin Faibish" <sfaibish@emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9C0FE01C-2ECC-468D-AC32-524191536058@netapp.com> <55D5676A-E5CE-4BF6-82D9-C21B7D44CAAE@netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <op.vkfpn4wjrwwil4@sfaibish1.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <55D5676A-E5CE-4BF6-82D9-C21B7D44CAAE@netapp.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.63 (Win32)
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
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 23:17:40 -0000

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:19:22 -0400, Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>  
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.
5 including Daniel from EMC France.

>
> 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.
Just to be clear whoever organizes the event in Europe needs to have
enough budget to support it. It is not clear to me who will have the
budget in Prague or Hamburg? In Paris there is EMC that can have the  
budget.
This is why we thought of Paris in the first place as an alternative to  
Boston
in 2010. Due to the economy people voted for Boston. This is why we had it  
in
Boston.

>
> 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.
38 excluding EMC.

/Sorin

>
> 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?
>
> 2) Do you plan to attend the June 2011 BAT if it is at CITI?
>
> 3) If you said yes to both, which one do you think you would get
> the most worth from?
>
> 4) Did you attend the June 2010 BAT at CITI?
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Best Regards
Sorin Faibish
Corporate Distinguished Engineer
Unified Storage Division

        EMC²
where information lives

Phone: 508-435-1000 x 48545
Cellphone: 617-510-0422
Email : sfaibish@emc.com