Open Stack

I have no issue with bad abstracts: those make it very easy to discard the
proposals. It's not that there aren't enough good ones :)

I also rank negatively the submissions with too many presenters: two is
already a crowd for a 25min presentation. Three is mostly an excuse to get
a free ticket.

Multiple submissions from the same author is suspicious: maybe that's a
useful piece of data to expose on the UI "this presenter is also listed a
speaker in $URLs"... I wouldn't limit the proposals artificially since
there may well be smart people capable of covering multiple subjects.
On Aug 17, 2015 4:46 PM, "Mark Collier" <mark at openstack.org> wrote:

> Personally I like the idea of a longer abstract.
>
> I also think that limiting the # of submissions per person would be
> reasonable (I'll refrain from suggesting a number in this post)
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Manju Ramanathpura <
> manju.ramanathpura at hds.com> wrote:
>
> I am along the same opinion too.   I still like to keep the vote, but
> shouldn’t be only criteria to make it to the final cut.
>
> Another unfortunate trend I saw this time was that few folks have
> submitted multiple sessions with very little  variations in the abstract.
>  I can’t help but think that this was done to increase their chance. They
> could’ve easily figured out a way to combine those multiple sessions.
> Won’t name the names,  but something to keep in mind as we continue to
> improvise process.
>
> -Manju
>
>
> From: Jaesuk Ahn <bluejay.ahn at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2015 at 3:47 PM
> To: "Clark, Robert Graham" <robert.clark at hp.com>, Egle Sigler <
> ushnishtha at hotmail.com>, Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>,
> Niki Acosta nikacost <nikacost at cisco.com>
> Cc: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to
> contribute' track
>
> +1 for more in depth abstract process.
> While I am serving as a track chair, I found out many talks have a short
> abstract. It is almost  impossible to figure out what this talk is really
> about.
>
> --
> Jaesuk
>
>
> 2015년 8월 18일 (화) 04:56, Clark, Robert Graham <robert.clark at hp.com>님이 작성:
>
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Dtrack-2Dchairs&d=BQMFaQ&c=DZ-EF4pZfxGSU6MfABwx0g&r=yPMLvt-2gkDKKSZiboSwnHPxwqVFUq1Tq1fbnAFoPVY&m=dkpeqWVZFbOlLW-SMrUQlziv2R758ZJNMqeKmOSaJ3E&s=vHAmPatHNLRKF4n9n1xjZZOLJc9vUMFQNR1PwyKHvVY&e=>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
>> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Dtrack-2Dchairs&d=BQMFaQ&c=DZ-EF4pZfxGSU6MfABwx0g&r=yPMLvt-2gkDKKSZiboSwnHPxwqVFUq1Tq1fbnAFoPVY&m=dkpeqWVZFbOlLW-SMrUQlziv2R758ZJNMqeKmOSaJ3E&s=vHAmPatHNLRKF4n9n1xjZZOLJc9vUMFQNR1PwyKHvVY&e=>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150817/80d9f0b4/attachment.html>