Rethinking UDS

Bryce Harrington bryce at canonical.com
Fri May 28 04:26:44 BST 2010


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:50:20PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> == Problems with the status quo ==
> 
> 1. UDS is big and complex.  Creating and maintaining the schedule is a lot
> of work in itself, and this large format requires a large venue, which in
> turn requires more planning and logistical work (not to mention cost).  This
> is only worthwhile if we get proportionally more benefit out of the event
> itself.

It seems that UDS includes two distinct activities:

  a. Gather ideas
  b. Plan implementation work

It makes me wonder if by doing both in parallel leads to some of this
complexity, and if so whether it might make sense to split the 2 UDS's a
year into 3 events:  One big yearly idea gathering event, and two
more focused and intimate technical planning events.

It sounds like there's a sizeable subset of UDS attendees who really are
just interested in expressing requirements and brainstorming solutions,
who would then be able to focus on the big yearly event.  Sounds like
one event would be enough to generate enough blueprints for at least two
cycles so once a year might be enough.

As well, such an arrangement simplifies scheduling.  The idea gathering
event can be pretty loose and flexible.  But its outputs allows us to
make decisions about what to do in each of the following two releases.
So when it comes time for the planning events, we know exactly what
topics need discussed and can create a pretty solid schedule ahead of
time.

> 3. UDS is (still) exhausting.  While we should work hard, and a level
> of intensity helps to energize us, I think it's a bit too much.
> Sessions later in the week are substantially more sluggish than early
> on

If UDS were split into separate idea gathering and planning phases, you
could imagine the planning event being shortened to maybe 3 days, to
make optimum use of energy levels.

[Another alternate idea I've heard voiced is to have a 5-day event but
make the Wednesday in the middle be a "day off", for people to go
explore whatever exotic setting we've found ourselves, catch up on
sleep, etc. to refresh the brains for the final two days.  (Probably
would be more cost effective to just chop the last day off the event and
send folks home a day early if everything could be achieved in 4 days,
but it's an interesting idea.)]
 
> 4. The format of UDS is optimized for short discussions (as many as we can
> fit into the grid).  This is good for many technical decisions, but does not
> lend itself as well to generating new ideas, deeply exploring a topic,

Sounds like this suggests the 'idea gathering event' might want to have
longer sessions with more general purpose topics, whereas the 'planning
event' would want shorter, more focused sessions.

Bryce



More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list