[LLVMdev] Dev Meeting BOF: Performance Tracking

[Kristof Beyls]

Hi Gerolf,

I also like actionable items coming out of a BoF more than "just talk".
That's why we tried identifying actionable items at the similar BoF last
year, and why I tried summarizing them clearly, see
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2013-11/slides/BenchmarkBOFNotes.html.

Last year, it proved difficult for most attendees to commit on the spot
during the BoF to actually work on any of the actions.

I think that the summary referred to above has helped to have most of
the actions implemented over the course of the year, even though most
actions at the BoF didn't have anyone owning them.

I agree it would be great if we'd have participants who can commit time
to work on action items on the spot. If that would prove difficult again
this time around, the next best thing I think is to at least have
actionable items identified and documented like last year.

Do I understand your proposal correctly that you propose to use a BoF slot
to produce actionable items, similar to last year; and then use e.g. a
lightning talk slot later during the conference to present to a wider
audience what the action items are?

Thanks,

Kristof

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Renato Golin
> Sent: 20 August 2014 01:03
> To: Gerolf Hoflehner
> Cc: LLVM Dev
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Dev Meeting BOF: Performance Tracking
> 
> On 20 August 2014 00:24, Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at apple.com> wrote:
> > My experience from leading BOFs at other conferences is more talk than
> action. So I suggest a different setup for this topic: how about having
> a working group meeting with participants who can commit time to work on
> this topic?
> 
> Mine too, but in this case I have to say it wasn't at all what happened.
> It started with a 10 minute description of what we had and why it was
> bad, followed by a 40 minute discussion on what to do and how.
> 
> There were about 80 people in the room, all actively involved in
> defining actions and actors. In the end we had clear goals, with clear
> owners and we have implemented every single one of them to date. I have
> to say, I've never seen that happen before!
> 
> Furthermore, the "working group" was about the 80 people in the room
> anyway, and they all helped in one way or another. So, for any other
> discussion, I'd agree with you. For this one, I think we should stick to
> what's working. :)
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev