[LLVMdev] Dev Meeting BOF: Performance Tracking

[Gerolf Hoflehner]

Hi Kristof,

thanks for the link and background info! It looks like this topic has a lot of 
traction and momentum that already resembles a workgroup setting. A joined
list of action items and owners would be a wonderful outcome.

Cheers
Gerolf
 
On Aug 20, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com> wrote:

> 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?
Yes, pretty much so.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>