Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011

Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Haynes@netapp.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 94A013A6B96 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, 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 oBLcRZaOlIy8 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6803A6832 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,316,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="466008276"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2010 15:19:25 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.27]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o9BMJPtg025071 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.114]) by sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:19:25 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.111]) by rtprsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:19:24 -0400
Received: from robert2-lxp.hq.netapp.com ([10.58.60.245]) by RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:19:23 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <9C0FE01C-2ECC-468D-AC32-524191536058@netapp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:19:22 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <55D5676A-E5CE-4BF6-82D9-C21B7D44CAAE@netapp.com>
References: <9C0FE01C-2ECC-468D-AC32-524191536058@netapp.com>
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2010 22:19:24.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C1060B0:01CB6992]
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 22:18:29 -0000

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?

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.