[openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking proposals for Barcelona Summit
tristan at aptira.com
Thu May 19 15:04:42 UTC 2016
So essentially a barrel draw, but the entrants into the barrel get a bit of
a prior brush over and your name gets put against anything you brush off.
It's innovative. I like it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Haas [mailto:florian at hastexo.com]
> Sent: Friday, 20 May 2016 12:55 AM
> To: Tristan Goode <tristan at aptira.com>
> Cc: community <community at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-community] Proposal: remove voting on speaking
> proposals for Barcelona Summit
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tristan Goode <tristan at aptira.com> wrote:
> > I wasn’t serious to begin with, but faced with the two options of
> > either:
> > The Foundation dropping the voting and using the (same old) "cheer
> > squad" to select talks..
> > Or
> > Your proposal of only letting speakers pick talks..
> > It increasingly looks as valid selection method as any. Both the above
> > methods, by dropping the audience's ability to have their say in any
> > way at all say fuck the audience.
> > Maybe voting for the track chairs is a way to give the audience some
> > say.
> > The current method of the foundation picking the cheer squad denies
> > any critique.
> Problem with that, just like we're now having a popularity contest with
> voting, we would then have a popularity contest with talk chair voting.
> > I was once a track chair, but haven't been for a couple of years
> > because I got dropped from the cheer squad possibly for not agreeing
> > that everything the foundation and the TC do is beyond question. But
> > at least I get to vote for talks and take great pleasure in voting
> > against the usual blowhards that the cheer squad nominate
> Quite frankly, I don't have a good idea for naming track chairs, and your
> grudge highlights exactly what the problem is with track chair
> I also don't have a good idea for talk voting that involves the entire
> and doesn't make it a popularity contest. That's why I proposed one where
> the group of reviewers is larger than the current hand-picked track chair
> group, and where the votes are more meaningful than with what we have
> But here's another idea that does away with track chairs, with voting
> into the Summit, and with favoritism altogether:
> - Immediately after the CfP ends, all abstracts go public and are in a
> period for, say, two weeks.
> - Anyone can comment on any abstract providing input and questions.
> - The only possible audience *vote* that exists is pass/fail. Meaning,
> this be suitable for the Summit or not (the idea is that the default is
> and that you would not light-heartedly give a fail, particularly if your
> judgment is public).
> - Once the review period is over, based on the number of fails given
> you can work out what's the cutoff to be eliminated from the race.
> - From all talks not thus eliminated, there's a randomized draw.
> What does this mean?
> - Everyone gets a chance at voicing their opinions.
> - Speakers can get audience feedback before they even start their talk,
> which gives us better talks.
> - Everyone has the same fair chance at getting a talk slot.
> - We get speaker churn; new speakers are more likely to get a shot than in
> the current system which is biased in favor of repeat performers.
> - No-one needs to be disappointed because their talk doesn't get accepted.
> It's just the roll of the dice.
> - The only way to mathematically increase your chances of getting a slot
> is to
> submit more talks, which is easily solved by capping the total number of
> you can submit. Which we already do.
More information about the Community