Hi Yuval, Your questions have been added. Thank you, Anantha From: Yuval Lifshitz &lt;ylifshit(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 6:30 AM To: Mike Perez &lt;miperez(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: ceph-users &lt;ceph-users(a)ceph.io&gt;io>; Adiga, Anantha &lt;anantha.adiga(a)intel.com&gt;om>; Paul Mezzanini &lt;pfmeec(a)rit.edu&gt;du>; Anthony D'Atri &lt;anthony.datri(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Planning: Ceph User Survey 2020 Hi Mike, Could we add more questions on RGW usecases and functionality adoption? For instance: bucket notifications: * do you use "bucket notifications"? * if so, which endpoint do you use: kafka, amqp, http? * which other endpoints would you like to see there? sync modules: * do you use the cloud sync module? if so, with which cloud provider? * do you use an archive zone? * do you use the elasticsearch module? multisite: * do you have more than one realm in your setup? if so, how many? * do you have more than one zone group in your setup? * do you have more than one zone in your setup? if so, how many in the largest zone group? * is the syncing policy between zones global or per bucket? On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:06 PM Mike Perez <miperez@redhat.com<mailto:miperez@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi everyone, The Ceph User Survey 2020 is being planned by our working group. Please review the draft survey pdf, and let's discuss any changes. You may also join us in the next meeting *on November 25th at 12pm *PT https://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/User_Survey_Working_Group https://tracker.ceph.com/attachments/download/5260/Ceph%20User%20Survey%202… We're aiming to have something ready by mid-December. -- Mike Perez he/him Ceph / Rook / RDO / Gluster Community Architect Open-Source Program Office (OSPO) M: +1-951-572-2633 494C 5D25 2968 D361 65FB 3829 94BC D781 ADA8 8AEA @Thingee <https://twitter.com/thingee> Thingee <https://www.linkedin.com/thingee> <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc> <https://www.redhat.com> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>

The survey team spent some time discussing the pros and cons of formats for a number of the questions in the new survey. I think when we initially sent out the first draft of the survey, that specific question was simple checkboxes, as I think it had been in the previous year’s edition. The final survey looks like this: https://www.evernote.com/l/AL3oM6JyI7JDK4Z33Nk3OplinNhBxgs_G8Y There were several factors that influenced our choices. One is a disinclination to force a strict ranking of items for which ordering isn’t natural. For example, one might favor one resource to discover context for option settings, and another for explanation of error messages — is one more useful than the other? When a respondent had not previously been aware of some of the choices, how does she legitimately rank them compared to others? This overlaps with the realization that stack-ranking of employees is at best contrived and at worst harmful: diverse sets of talents are complementary, and “different” usually != “better”. Another is that the survey is already long, demanding significiant time and energy to thoughtfully complete. Rankings require extra thought and time, which can be in short supply when one just wants to get through the darned thing and get back to work and/or a plate of garlic fries. One contributor observed that in a long survey especially, respondents are likely to just stab at anything to get to the next question, vs. ardously comparing each pair of values (bubble sort!). This phenomenon grows as the number of choices grows. With two choices, it’s not too bad; with 10 it’s a pain. “Okay I’ll rank the first item as 3. Oh but then the fifth item really is 3, so I need to go back and change the first item to, um, 4. But the third item really is 4, so ummm …. " This can lead to lower quality results. Consider Arrow’s theorem: you can’t have an ideally rational democratic social aggregation device. By reducing tedium, we aim to get better results while also improving the experience for the respondent. As we reworked the entire survey, we strove to maximize both value and ease of participation. For certain questions we settled on the matrix format shown at the link above. This lets us capture the value of each resource as an absolute, rather than coercing an (artificial) relative value. It lets the respondent consider the value of each resource independently of the others, while also decreasing tedium. — Anthony