This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Shaddi Hasan shaddih at gmail.comHi all, First, I think it's great you're considering doing this Harald. It's been exciting to see the user community develop around Osmocom projects, and I would be very interested in attending an in-person gathering. My $0.02 on splitting. I think the premise makes sense, given the very different focuses of the two groups, but I'd encourage if possible not doing parallel tracks. In my experience with other conferences, parallel tracks wind up forcing participants who are interested in both to make difficult decisions, leading to people missing out on things. Doing a temporal split (day 1/2 or morning/afternoon) would be my preference, but of course you and the other developers would be bearing the brunt of the time burden! At risk of bikeshedding, how about "OsmoCon" as a name for the entire event, with OsmoDevCon remaining the usual developer-only portion? Thanks, Shaddi On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Alexander Chemeris <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 13, 2016 2:15 AM, "Harald Welte" <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote: > >> > One could even structure it further and say we have one user day, one >> > public 'Osmocom cellular developer day' and then the closed 'OsmoDevCon >> > classic', maybe reduced from 4 days to 3 or even 2 days only? >> >> Not sure why public developer part can't be a part of the public user >> part? Lets just find a good name for it which doesn't contain word >> "user". :) > > Well, the topics are invariably different. A user (aka "operator") > cares about configuration + running + monitoring [the software], while a > developers care about code architecture, interfaces, testing, etc. > > In general, there is not much overlap betwene those two groups, > particularly not as their respective orgaization gets larger. > > Hence my proposal to split the two. Of course it could e a > "morning/afternoon", a "day 1/day 2" or a "2 tracks in parallel" split > > > On a second thought I do agree. Thank you for further explaining! > > I personally believe parallel tracks make most sense to save everyone's > time, but it's up to organizers to decide, because it puts additional load > on them. > > Please excuse typos. Written with a touchscreen keyboard. > > -- > Regards, > Alexander Chemeris > CEO Fairwaves, Inc. > https://fairwaves.co