[openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking proposals for Barcelona Summit

Chris Jones chris at sdnessentials.com
Wed May 18 16:12:26 UTC 2016

I don't know if the voice of somebody very new to the OpenStack community
has any value, but as somebody who is indeed new I wanted to put in my
support for the ending of voting for speaking sessions. The amount of sheer
spam I see for the couple days or a week (honestly not sure) asking people
to vote for this session or that session is frustrating. I've had to mute
or unfollow a number of social media accounts in the past because of the

I don't know what the better way is, but there's got to be one.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Florian Haas <florian at hastexo.com> wrote:

> On 05/18/2016 05:45 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> >     You submit a talk, you have a say in the overall program. Simple as
> >     that. Kind of like you submit patches, you have a say in the
> direction
> >     your project is taking.
> >
> >
> > The challenge there my friend is it incentivizes the community to submit
> > talks solely for the purpose of gaining influence within the selection
> > process. Kind of like submitting patches for spelling/punctuation in the
> > OpenStack documentation solely for the purpose gaining voting rights
> > during TC elections and ATC status -- hence free Summit pass.
> Fair point, which I addressed in my original message. Relevant quote below:
> > When I first floated this idea on the track chair mailing list a few
> > months ago, Duncan Thomas made this point:
> >
> > [Duncan]
> >> I think limiting votes only to people who submit talks would lead to
> >> people/companies submitting poor talks just to get a vote (gaming the
> >> system).
> >
> > To which I then replied:
> >
> > [Florian]
> >> That's a fair point. However, reviewers could separately flag
> >> proposals that don't meet certain quality criteria. (*Some* formal
> >> criteria could even be checked by computers, not humans.) And there
> >> could be a rule that if, say, the majority of a talk's (anonymous)
> >> reviewers flag foul play, all the proposer's proposals *and* all and
> >> the proposer's votes would be invalidated. I think that would be a
> >> fairly strong deterrent. And in order to deter abuse of *that* system,
> >> the event of a proposer being thus sin-binned should probably be
> >> reviewed by a panel of some description.
> > No easy answers for sure. I'm not opinionated strongly either way but
> > would support testing the idea of eliminating voting in Barcelona to see
> > how it goes. I'm guessing that if it does not go well or have unexpected
> > social consequence, the Foundation will have ample opportunity to
> > course-correct.
> One technical point on that, "testing" would imply that there is data
> from Austin that could be compared to data from Barcelona, to judge the
> relative quality of the two Summits. I'm not sure if we even have
> sufficient data (attendee feedback) from Austin and Tokyo to be able to
> determine whether quality improves in Barcelona.
> If others think voting is so awful right now that rather than having
> another summit with the current system and then switching to another, it
> is a better idea to ditch voting now and possibly re-adopt it later,
> then I'll be happy to accept that.
> I, for one, am not fond of letting go of community involvement, for
> concern of never getting it back.
> Cheers,
> Florian
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

Chris Jones, JNCIE-ENT #272
SDN Engineer
858-888-0373 (cell)
E-Mail: chris at sdnessentials.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20160518/a5471f5e/attachment.html>

More information about the Community mailing list