Open Stack

I agree with what Robert indicates below. For the networking track, we look
at votes but certainly don't use them to decide which talks get selected.
It's a system which is too easy to game as others have pointed out.
Requiring a more in-depth abstract would be a good first step to fixing
some of these problems.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Clark, Robert Graham <robert.clark at hp.com>
wrote:

> For my part, as a security track chair, I don’t see a huge value in the
> voting system, it simply doesn’t scale and can easily be ‘gamed’ by
> organisations large enough.
>
>
>
> We do use the votes as guidance but honestly I’m not sure that’s the best
> way of doing things. I’d far rather see a more in depth abstract process,
> with more academic abstracts that go into far more detail and with far more
> rigor than we see today. This would hopefully dissuade many of the summit
> tourists (chancers who submit clickbait talks).
>
>
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
> *From:* Egle Sigler [mailto:ushnishtha at hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 August 2015 19:21
> *To:* Stefano Maffulli; Niki Acosta nikacost
> *Cc:* openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to
> contribute' track
>
>
>
> Hello Stefano,
>
>
>
> "I always considered the voting process as a marketing tool for the
> event, a community ritual, a celebration of openstack community as a whole
> and not something that the selection committee should use. I find looking
> at votes extremely unfair to the submitters and diminishing of the
> selection committee's role, too. IMO a good committee should evaluate based
> on quality of content relative to the objectives for that specific summit
> (overall focus, location), and totally ignore the popularity of their
> proposers (or their employees).
> "
>
>
>
> While I agree with you on some of the points, ignoring voting would
> essentially remove community from providing any input into the selection.
> Are you suggesting getting rid of voting all together?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Egle
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:01:28 -0700
> From: stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com
> To: nikacost at cisco.com
> CC: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to
> contribute' track
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Niki Acosta (nikacost) <
> nikacost at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> We decided as a group to move those to the How to Contribute track with
> the following rationale:
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing the reasoning behind your choice.
>
>
>
> While we liked The Critic as Contributor as a talk, there were few votes
>
> on this talk and the score ranked lower compared to others.
>
>  [...]
>
> We did our best to balance vote scoring with what we felt would
> have broad community appeal.
>
> [...]
>
> The fact that you used votes as a deciding factor, even if only as the
> last one, saddens me. I see votes as results of a popularity contest and if
> used for anything, they dramatically damage the minorities that are not on
> twitter, the people who are shy by nature and those working for companies
> that don't have a strong social media presence (or don't use it at all). In
> fact, I'd argue that the results of the votes should be even hidden in the
> track chair UI.
>
> I always considered the voting process as a marketing tool for the event,
> a community ritual, a celebration of openstack community as a whole and not
> something that the selection committee should use. I find looking at votes
> extremely unfair to the submitters and diminishing of the selection
> committee's role, too. IMO a good committee should evaluate based on
> quality of content relative to the objectives for that specific summit
> (overall focus, location), and totally ignore the popularity of their
> proposers (or their employees).
>
> I understand you had other priorities for you track, that's fair.
> Selections are always hard, we all had a lot more proposals than available
> slots. I am only commenting on your mention of the results of the
> popularity contest. I wish there were clear and public guidelines on the
> purpose of the voting process.
>
> /stef
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Openstack-track-chairs
> mailing list Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20150817/ba88c633/attachment.html>