On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:29:19PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 6:55 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [adds ritesh to cc] > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:23:25AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 8:06 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:01:39AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > FYI, I counted more than 10 attendees that are active contributors or > > > > > have contributed to xfs in one way or another. > > > > > That's roughly a third of the FS track. > > > > > > > > FYI, I'm flying out at 4:15pm on Wednesday, and while I try to keep my > > > > time at the airport short I'd still be gone by 3:30. > > > > > > I've penciled XFS BoF at 2:30 > > > > Ritesh and Ted and Jan and I were chatting during the ext4 concall just > > now. Could we have a 30 minute iomap bof at 2:30pm followed by the XFS > > bof after that? That would give us some time to chat with hch about > > iomap (and xfs) direction before he has to leave. > > > > Alternately, we could announce a lunchtime discussion group on Monday > > following Ritesh's presentation about iomap. That could fit everyone's > > schedule better? Also everyone's braincaches will likely be warmer. > > > > Seems to me that there will be a wider interest in iomap BoF > Not sure what you mean by lunchtime discussion. Monday 90-minute lunch is posted as being in "Grand ballroom C", so I would tell everyone to come find the table(s) I'm sitting at for a discussion over lunch. We can move out to a hallway after everyone's done eating. > We can move Willy's GFP_NOFS talk to 15:30 and have the iomap BoF > after Ritesh's session. <shrug> If you like, though I don't think it's totally necessary. But you might have a better idea of what the venue is like than I do, so I'll let you make that call. :) > > > > > > > > But that will only matter if you make the BOF and actual BOF and not the > > > > usual televised crap that happens at LSFMM. > > > > > > > > > > What happens in XFS BoF is entirely up to the session lead and attendees > > > to decide. > > > > > > There is video in the room, if that is what you meant so that remote attendees > > > that could not make it in person can be included. > > > > > > We did not hand out free virtual invites to anyone who asked to attend. > > > Those were sent very selectively. > > > > > > Any session lead can request to opt-out from publishing the video of the > > > session publicly or to audit the video before it is published. > > > This was the same last year and this year this was explicitly mentioned > > > in the invitation: > > > > > > "Please note: As with previous years there will be an A/V team on- > > > site in order to facilitate conferencing and help with virtual > > > participants. In order to leave room for off-the-record discussions > > > the storage track completely opts out of recordings. For all other > > > tracks, please coordinate with your track leads (mentioned below) > > > whether a session should explicitly opt-out. This can also be > > > coordinated on-site during or after the workshop. The track leads > > > then take care that the given session recording will not be > > > published." > > > > > > I will take a note to keep XFS BoF off the record if that is what you > > > want and if the other xfs developers do not object. > > > > Survey: How many people want to attend the xfs bof virtually? > > > > I'd be ok with an OTR discussion with no video, though I reserve the > > right to change my mind if the score becomes chair: 2 djwong: 0. :P > > The middle ground is to allow video for the selective virtual attendees > (and trust them not to record and publish) and not publish the video > on LSMFF site. I didn't know that was also an option; I'll keep that in mind. --D > Thanks, > Amir. >
