From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94A0C10DCE for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E52821D56 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="suzTUJ0r" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5E52821D56 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=toxicpanda.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 012916B0008; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id F2DCD6B000A; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:08:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E429F6B000C; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:08:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0230.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.230]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6A86B0008 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7147A5DD2 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:08:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76565420400.05.toe03_85e7323e57642 X-HE-Tag: toe03_85e7323e57642 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6383 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com (mail-qt1-f196.google.com [209.85.160.196]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id d22so2103656qtn.0 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:08:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bKjjoKS2T/q2pwOzdPEgk28ZK6vwf0Cp/W1ojk+aNxI=; b=suzTUJ0rRf5960m06RBzjBCAnb4svatr0bn0EiS4JneAE0k5HF7YYx6h6I/G3u0zz7 m96ZG9h1Pd3ArvPVXZNxDOX6plQKDTFUja6qgm5dN7KLDiN/kgmTaZbCE/56xH0Ywn6E cbYT95e/4A63SjcnU9EOAMIJKduLA9kwkZ8CBqJBG478VWdnD7kIs27f0HPnMnaIP7TS BgZ/r2CISnPn+4LMMjcPwbXDKfJnsTiFlVc1r4+0xcGC1ZAgsoaC5bQH5Uu4ECKW/5uy Z2/A7XopDa/7rCk5xu5WEGYxIGesVc8vZI7tQ248eHo2Ly6r48AO5tiKN8UP6W9Rjk8l +F6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bKjjoKS2T/q2pwOzdPEgk28ZK6vwf0Cp/W1ojk+aNxI=; b=UswEnF7Hp4jfZYICvyvQZm4H9qjaRiyQC2hZYW3V2i+QkYTEaUATCN5IXsdWDjGCGB wsQ8PFxfYnJAiYCEF/VeTxQDziXJUW7pWBV3hjI11oCiRW9RdW9PxhAOQeTp8WXrFght 0DQWIQgFRgrC24549cHAzoz4/xWZHe0NC5u/R5AY2pwMC2OGkwkRxVqHF7Ficc9CBEXi /5DJzSwe+TTrAvxLQsvv4bPVNm5JxmoIjzGPjgbDy1Wy6QZ2tZIX/BDlhE2XxgMp85gN IHZc2JagG5sWho8EbdIHi/9TjaC6kUCl347WAdba7RVJdnKunUlH8DZ3pzoJfM3E/awn TQUg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ22P4JSnHdLVP0OXjemRGreiU0p3Y7YFv6sg3C212q3mCotKdu7 biFzg1WWvT4plTSUlnw9oQQb6A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtz2X7WRHc2rQE/mqPpG+Shd2ceCs6iuKNfvLRNmthFTpAKQGUMSM9LnAA3V0GzqXTOmroBUA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6ec1:: with SMTP id f1mr3636659qtv.378.1583510918016; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.106] ([107.15.81.208]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p38sm1677376qtf.50.2020.03.06.08.08.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:08:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] Killing LSFMMBPF To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Cc: lsf-pc , Linux FS Devel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Btrfs BTRFS , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <20200306155611.GA167883@mit.edu> From: Josef Bacik Message-ID: <72708005-0810-1957-1e58-5b70779ab6db@toxicpanda.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:08:36 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200306155611.GA167883@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.025103, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 3/6/20 10:56 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 09:35:41AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> This has been a topic that I've been thinking about a lot recently, mostly >> because of the giant amount of work that has been organizing LSFMMBPF. I >> was going to wait until afterwards to bring it up, hoping that maybe it was >> just me being done with the whole process and that time would give me a >> different perspective, but recent discussions has made it clear I'm not the >> only one..... > > I suggest that we try to decouple the question of should we have > LSF/MM/BPF in 2020 and COVID-19, with the question of what should > LSF/MM/BPF (perhaps in some transfigured form) should look like in > 2021 and in the future. > Yes this is purely about 2021 and the future, not 2020. > A lot of the the concerns expressed in this e-mails are ones that I > have been concerned about, especially: > >> 2) There are so many of us.... > >> 3) Half the people I want to talk to aren't even in the room. This may be a >> uniquely file system track problem, but most of my work is in btrfs, and I >> want to talk to my fellow btrfs developers.... > >> 4) Presentations.... > > These *exactly* mirror the dynamic that we saw with the Kernel Summit, > and how we've migrated to a the Maintainer's Summit with a Kernel > centric track which is currently colocated with Plumbers. > > I think it is still useful to have something where we reach consensus > on multi-subsystem contentious changes. But I think those topics > could probably fit within a day or maybe a half day. Does that sound > familiar? That's essentially what we now have with the Maintainer'st > Summit. > > The problem with Plumbers is that it's really, really full. Not > having invitations doesn't magically go away; Plumbers last year had > to deal with long waitlist, and strugglinig to make sure that all of > the critical people who need be present so that the various Miniconfs > could be successful. Ah ok, I haven't done plumbers in a few years, I knew they would get full but I didn't think it was that bad. > > This is why I've been pushing so hard for a second Linux systems > focused event in the first half of the year. I think if we colocate > the set of topics which are currently in LSF/MM, the more file system > specific presentations, the ext4/xfs/btrfs mini-summits/working > sessions, and the maintainer's summit / kernel summit, we would have > critical mass. And I am sure there will be *plenty* of topics left > over for Plumbers. > I'd be down for this. Would you leave the thing open so anybody can register, or would you still have an invitation system? I really, really despise the invitation system just because it's inherently self limiting. However I do want to make sure we are getting relevant people in the room, and not making it this "oh shit, I forgot to register, and now the conference is full" sort of situations. Thanks, Josef