[openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking proposals for Barcelona Summit
tristan at aptira.com
Thu May 19 13:19:59 UTC 2016
So let me get this straight... You're proposing that only speakers vote for
Because hey, fuck the audience right?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Haas [mailto:florian at hastexo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2016 6:00 PM
> To: Lana Brindley <openstack at lanabrindley.com>
> Cc: community <community at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking
> proposals for Barcelona Summit
> Hi Lana!
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Lana Brindley
> <openstack at lanabrindley.com> wrote:
> > I'm actually really starting to like Florian's proposed method, with one
> exception: I don't like the idea of limiting it to talk submitters. The
> reason I
> say this is that, before I was a PTL, I submitted talks to every summit.
> stopped when I became a PTL because, quite simply, I spend most of my
> time running sessions in the Design Summit, only popping over to the main
> conference for the talks I absolutely don't want to miss. I think by
> limiting the
> voting to only people submitting talks, you will miss the voice of people
> deliberately *don't* submit a talk, because they're massively invested in
> other aspects of the conference, especially those on the more technical
> of the house.
> > Perhaps, instead of limiting it to talk submitters, maybe make it
> > available to
> a different subset: people who have attended previously, maybe?
> Hmmm. Well I'm afraid limiting talk votes to talk submitters is exactly
> makes the proposed approach meaningful. :)
> If you have a minute, please consider reviewing Prof. Merrifield's remarks
> the video when Brady asks his question starting with "call me a cynic",
> https://youtu.be/7c0CoXFApnM?t=6m25s — this is exactly the part that
> makes this system self-policing, and it goes out the window if your own
> proposal isn't at stake.
> Side note, if your assessment badly disagrees with what everyone else has
> been thinking about a proposal, then this is not necessarily because
> naughty and you want to game the system — you may just be a shoddy
> reviewer who went over their reviewed proposals in a rush whereas
> everyone else gave them more time. That, too, is something that the system
> *should* penalize, because it ensures the quality of the review process.
> There is one other criticism to this, which is the opposite: what if I'm
> *extremely* diligent and I detect an issue that no-one else detects? This
> addressed here: https://youtu.be/bplncn4xC74?t=1m48s
> (tl;dw: have public, anonymized free-form comments available to all
> At any rate though, I can't think of a way to do this that does *not* make
> group of reviewers identical with the group of submitters.
> And quite frankly, I quite like it as it is, considering the fact that the
> system forces everyone not only to think "how would I rank this", but also
> "how would *others* rank this", which is exactly what you want for the
> benefit of the much greater group of conference attendees (as opposed to
> What are your thoughts on that?
> Community mailing list
> Community at lists.openstack.org
More information about the Community