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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 B778BC49EA4 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3887B613AB for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:07:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3887B613AB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2E2226B0011; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2B8DB6B0036; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:07:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1330E6B006C; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:07:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0078.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.78]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CEC6B0011 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE35181C34F4 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:07:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78283048620.16.89B4B25 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15734C00F787 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (62-78-145-57.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.145.57]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5F9AA66; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 02:07:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1624406827; bh=XmuXHoOHtHnNMvadIBXxUBeEBXIwxD7W0OO1IbKbwn8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eKUHcf9u81HC+idmdb011OeaHRqIR+1RLeDihqsl/C2IE7fWkHRDuDPh+oomwfvMv Sb6t/93I+SKuX3w4EQsBNOg0sxVEfuvK3h5w0mUGmnPTeBP1pZ7IM1hs6ydBSqPey8 OWsWT8tT3a+cy+ajfMexJChnpEkddaxz429TxsZQ= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 03:06:37 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Shuah Khan Cc: Steven Rostedt , Konstantin Ryabitsev , "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" , David Hildenbrand , James Bottomley , Greg KH , Christoph Lameter , Theodore Ts'o , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Maintainers / Kernel Summit 2021 planning kick-off Message-ID: References: <5038827c-463f-232d-4dec-da56c71089bd@metux.net> <20210610182318.jrxe3avfhkqq7xqn@nitro.local> <20210610152633.7e4a7304@oasis.local.home> <37e8d1a5-7c32-8e77-bb05-f851c87a1004@linuxfoundation.org> <3bfbe45c-2356-6db0-e1b8-11b7e37ae858@linuxfoundation.org> <66fce207-2602-6452-9216-01ebde656bcd@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66fce207-2602-6452-9216-01ebde656bcd@linuxfoundation.org> Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ideasonboard.com header.s=mail header.b=eKUHcf9u; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com designates 213.167.242.64 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: 9n8cc8g3k64bqunftszgc8q5y7iod149 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 15734C00F787 X-HE-Tag: 1624406828-66086 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:57:11PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 6/22/21 5:33 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 6/22/21 4:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:33:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>> On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>>> On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> There will always be more informal discussions between on-site > >>>>>>> participants. After all, this is one of the benefits of confere= nces, by > >>>>>>> being all together we can easily organize ad-hoc discussions. T= his is > >>>>>>> traditionally done by finding a not too noisy corner in the con= ference > >>>>>>> center, would it be useful to have more break-out rooms with A/= V > >>>>>>> equipment than usual ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've been giving this quite some thought too, and I've come to t= he > >>>>>> understanding (and sure I can be wrong, but I don't think that I= am), > >>>>>> is that when doing a hybrid event, the remote people will always= be > >>>>>> "second class citizens" with respect to the communication that i= s going > >>>>>> on. Saying that we can make it the same is not going to happen u= nless > >>>>>> you start restricting what people can do that are present, and t= hat > >>>>>> will just destroy the conference IMO. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That said, I think we should add more to make the communication = better > >>>>>> for those that are not present. Maybe an idea is to have break o= uts > >>>>>> followed by the presentation and evening events that include rem= ote > >>>>>> attendees to discuss with those that are there about what they m= ight > >>>>>> have missed. Have incentives at these break outs (free stacks an= d > >>>>>> beer?) to encourage the live attendees to attend and have a disc= ussion > >>>>>> with the remote attendees. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The presentations would have remote access, where remote attende= es can > >>>>>> at the very least write in some chat their questions or comments= . If > >>>>>> video and connectivity is good enough, perhaps have a screen whe= re they > >>>>>> can show up and talk, but that may have logistical limitations. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You are absolutely right that the remote people will have a hard = time > >>>>> participating and keeping up with in-person participants. I have = a > >>>>> couple of ideas on how we might be able to improve remote experie= nce > >>>>> without restricting in-person experience. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Have one or two moderators per session to watch chat and Q&A to= enable > >>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 remote participants to chime in and part= icipate. > >>>>> - Moderators can make sure remote participation doesn't go unnoti= ced and > >>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 enable taking turns for remote vs. peopl= e participating in person. > >>>>> > >>>>> It will be change in the way we interact in all in-person session= s for > >>>>> sure, however it might enhance the experience for remote attendee= s. > >>>> > >>>> A moderator to watch online chat and relay questions is I believe = very > >>>> good for presentations, it's hard for a presenter to keep an eye o= n a > >>>> screen while having to manage the interaction with the audience in= the > >>>> room (there's the usual joke of the difference between an introver= t and > >>>> an extrovert open-source developer is that the extrovert looks at = *your* > >>>> shoes when talking to you, but in many presentations the speaker > >>>> nowadays does a fairly good job as watching the audience, at least= from > >>>> time to time :-)). > >>>> > >>>> For workshop or brainstorming types of sessions, the highest barri= er to > >>>> participation for remote attendees is local attendees not speaking= in > >>>> microphones. That's the number one rule that moderators would need= to > >>>> enforce, I think all the rest depends on it. This may require a la= rger > >>>> number of microphones in the room than usual. > >>> > >>> Absolutely. Moderator has to make sure the following things happen = for > >>> this to be effective: > >>> > >>> - Watch chat and Q&A, Raise hand from remote participants > >>> - Enforce some kind of taking turns to allow fairness in > >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 participation > >>> - Have the speaker repeat questions asked in the room (we do that n= ow > >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 in some talks - both remote and in-person - chat= and Q&A needs > >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 reading out for recording) > >>> - Explore live Transcription features available in the virtual conf= . > >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 platform. You still need humans watching the tra= nscription. > >>> - Have a running session notes combined with transcription. > >>> > >>> Any of these options aren't sustainable when large number of people > >>> are participating remotely or in-person. In general a small number = of > >>> people participate either in person or remote in any case, based on > >>> my observation in remote and in-person settings. > >>> > >>> Maybe we can experiment with one or two workshops this time around > >>> and see how it works out. If we can figure an effective way, it wou= ld > >>> be beneficial for people that can't travel for one reason or the > >>> other. > >> > >> Can we nominate moderators ahead of time ? For workshop-style > >> discussions, they need to be a person who won't participate actively= in > >> the discussions, as it's impossible to both contribute and moderate = at > >> the same time. > >=20 > > Correct. It will be impossible to participate and moderate in worksho= p > > setting. We have to ask for volunteers and nominate moderators ahead = of > > time. >=20 > Subsystems could seek volunteers from other subsystems perhaps ... That's a good idea, and it's a great way to learn about other parts of the kernel (or other open-source projects). This would need to be taken into account when scheduling workshops though. I'd like to also propose giving official recognition of the important role of moderators, for instance by extending the speaker's gift scheme to moderators (no personal interest here as I won't attend the conference in person and thus can't be a moderator, and it's an easy to make suggestion for me as I don't manage conference budgets :-)). --=20 Regards, Laurent Pinchart