hi
Looks real good.
There might be a need to cut down as far as I can judge, but since these
track form a big part of ACNA, we really need a higher number of
wait-listed tasks.
just for info, adding the row# from the spreadsheet, helps the postprocess
work.
rgds
jan i
On Thursday, February 19,
Formatting is screwy, here's a more readable version of below:
Cloud
---
Operating CloudStack: sharing my tool box
Building Primary Storage with Ceph
Guaranteeing Storage Performance in CloudStack
Introduction to Apache jclouds
Replatforming the Cloud and Datacenter with Apache Mesos
I've put together three tracks (if there is space), if not then we can talk
about which ones are the best and put all other sessions on the wait list.
If there is more space I also have a DevOps track we could use (it's currently
short one session though I have plenty of Devops sessions I could
The session “Using Docker for Development of Production Systems based on OfBiz”
is taken for the ofbiz track (where I believe it is a better fit), I’m
therefore replacing it with “Cracking the Container Scale Problem With Apache
Mesos” – let me know if there is a problem with that
From: Ross Ga
OK, I've finally finished reviewing the remain tracks. I decided not to play
with the container track. My choices didn't fully align with Joe's below but
Joe got there before me so I'm going to defer to his (probably) better
judgement.
Joe, I'm going to update the sheet with my tracks I'll ensu
Shane, if you need any help with reviewing the talks, please let me
know, I'd be happy to give a 2nd opinion.
Rich, if Shane takes my offer I'd need that URL too.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 02/18/2015 12:35 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
On 2/17/15 1:07 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
Shane, are you able to find t
Both Rich and Jan have made the same point: We need to better job of
communicating our desire for the LF to run free - this is my personal takeaway
here
I'm not concerned about ApacheCon becoming "unapache" - that's why we chose the
LF and I believe that's the value LF see in ApacheCon. Their o
On 18 February 2015 at 22:28, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Rich is right, it's about balance. We don't want to leave LF high and dry
> regardless of what the contract says.
>
> However, I do think LF need to set a tone for the event. What tracks do
> they want
On 02/18/2015 04:28 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
However, I do think LF need to set a tone for the event. What tracks do they
want (meaning what will sell). They need to market the event (actually sell
it). They need to provide the infrastructure support to enable our volunteers
to
Rich is right, it's about balance. We don't want to leave LF high and dry
regardless of what the contract says.
However, I do think LF need to set a tone for the event. What tracks do they
want (meaning what will sell). They need to market the event (actually sell
it). They need to provide the
On 18 February 2015 at 18:26, Joe Witt wrote:
> Rich
>
> Understood. In the context of the stated objective for an incubator track
> my objective view is that those talks center on the incubating project.
>
Thanks, I am right now puzzling with the incubator track and lets see what
we can come up
On 2/17/15 1:07 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Shane, are you able to find time to pull together a business track
> either from what's been submitted, or from solicited talks?
>
Can someone privately remind me of the URL to review talks (I can see my
own CFP submissions, but not the whole set) and the o
Rich
Understood. In the context of the stated objective for an incubator track
my objective view is that those talks center on the incubating project.
I dont have access to the other proposal.
In the context of the community at large when there are projects that serve
similar problem domains th
On 02/18/2015 11:35 AM, Joe Witt wrote:
As an FYI there was a proposal I submitted which was about apache nifi
(incubating) (Apache NiFi: better analytics demands better dataflow).
That would be more in the spirit of a pure incubator track than #91
which appears (from the title) to combine som
As an FYI there was a proposal I submitted which was about apache nifi
(incubating) (Apache NiFi: better analytics demands better dataflow).
That would be more in the spirit of a pure incubator track than #91
which appears (from the title) to combine some information about a TLP
with an incubating
On 02/18/2015 09:31 AM, jan i wrote:
>* Clearly explain the role of the ASF vs the role of the LF. We are
>responsible for content, and only content, LF is responsible for everything
>else, and we need to stay out of their way and let them run a show. This is
>hard for us, as we are tinkerers b
HI.
The content of Incubator project track is:
#87, Introduction to Zeppelin
#91, Integrating Event Streams and File Data with Apache Flume and Apache
NiFi
#112, Pulsar: Realtime Analytics at Scale leveraging Kafka, Hadoop and Kylin
#183, Apache MRQL (incubating): Advanced Query Processing for Co
Hi
I have added a "incubator projects" track for 1 day (6 talks). I would
prefer a marketing name like "new and exciting projects", but I do feel it
is important to give these projects a chance to do marketing for their
projects.
Rgds
jan I.
On 18 February 2015 at 09:32, Sharan Foga wrote:
>
On 18 February 2015 at 15:16, Rich Bowen wrote:
> As we go through this process again and make a lot of the same mistakes I
> made the last two times, I'm trying really hard to keep notes so that when
> I hand this over to someone else, they don't have to figure it out all over
> again. I'm sure
As we go through this process again and make a lot of the same mistakes
I made the last two times, I'm trying really hard to keep notes so that
when I hand this over to someone else, they don't have to figure it out
all over again. I'm sure that Melissa will help me with this, but if
there's so
Hi Rich
Please can I have access to the spreadsheet.
Thanks
Sharan
On 17.2.2015 18:55, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 02/17/2015 12:48 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k6Fbr7ijMs2PJunN9lhsjq7NjnSXRCVXTJHAHRqWshc/edit?usp=sharing
This is read-only because it's not the
21 matches
Mail list logo
