[openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking proposals for Barcelona Summit
tristan at aptira.com
Thu May 19 14:38:21 UTC 2016
So what's it gonna be folks?... Democracy, Dictatorship (or a variant of)
or Anarchy (via a barrel draw)?
Can we pick one of each for each of the next three summit and see what
works? Bags picking Anarchy for Sydney tho!
*From:* Roland Chan [mailto:roland at aptira.com]
*Sent:* Friday, 20 May 2016 12:20 AM
*To:* Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
*Cc:* community <community at lists.openstack.org>
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking
proposals for Barcelona Summit
Procedural fairness trumps magical thinking.
I doubt anything will guarantee a good outcome. Guarantees are only worth
the money they are printed on.
On 20 May 2016 12:11 am, "Doug Hellmann" <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
On May 19, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Roland Chan <roland at aptira.com> wrote:
This attendees-only idea isn't entirely without merit, but the audience
isn't just people who attend. That is, unless the travel support program
decides to go webscale. One can't exclude voters because they can't afford
to spend a few thousand dollars to fly to Austin for a week. Some may say
such a proposition would be be racist in effect if not intent, but I
couldn't possibly comment. :P
That's a good point. On the other hand, anyone in the world, whether
they’re normally part of the community or not, can watch the videos. So
optimizing to allow every potential viewer to have input into the program,
over the people who do attend in person, doesn’t really have any guarantee
of giving us a good outcome either.
That said, I threw out the piece of information as a data point. I still
think having track chairs empowered to build the best program they can will
give better results than any amount of crowd-sourcing.
There are two fundamental choices: democracy or not (which includes
curation, oligarchy and dictatorship).
If we want to have a reduced franchise we may as well exclude everyone that
is affiliated to a submitter (perhaps outside of the marketing talks, and
who goes to them?). That would certainly solve the inherent bias issues
whilst also minimising dross.
On 19 May 2016 11:32 pm, "Doug Hellmann" <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Florian Haas's message of 2016-05-19 10:00:25 +0200:
> 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. That 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 who deliberately *don't* submit a talk, because they're
massively invested in other aspects of the conference, especially those on
the more technical side 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 what makes the proposed approach meaningful. :)
> If you have a minute, please consider reviewing Prof. Merrifield's
> remarks in the video when Brady asks his question starting with "call
> me a cynic", about 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 you're 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 being *extremely* diligent and I detect an issue that no-one else
> detects? This is 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 the group of reviewers identical with the group of submitters.
> And quite frankly, I quite like it as it is, considering the fact that
> the proposed 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 speakers).
> What are your thoughts on that?
I feel like this system assumes bad faith on the part of the
contributor (speaker, reviewer, and voter), and tries to enforce
good behavior through rules and technology. I would rather we have
a more public way of selecting track chairs and then have faith in
them to evaluate talks objectively for relevance and quality, sharing
guidance and feedback as part of the process.
Community mailing list
Community at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community