Open Stack

I found that it was difficult to discard bad talks in our track, but that’s just a tooling issue. Just like I could mark talks as being in my list, I’d love the ability to mark talks as “Will not consider” or something similar so that they hide from view. It would make it easier for me to organize things mentally.

I’d also however be in favor of something (longer abstracts or more information required) that increases the quality of submissions and probably reduces the quantity.

(please ignore the annoying cruft my employer adds below)

From: Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com<mailto:stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2015 at 6:36 PM
To: Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org<mailto:mark at openstack.org>>
Cc: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to contribute' track


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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:bluejay.ahn at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2015 at 3:47 PM
To: "Clark, Robert Graham" <robert.clark at hp.com<mailto:robert.clark at hp.com>>, Egle Sigler <ushnishtha at hotmail.com<mailto:ushnishtha at hotmail.com>>, Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com<mailto:stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>>, Niki Acosta nikacost <nikacost at cisco.com<mailto:nikacost at cisco.com>>
Cc: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto:stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>
To: nikacost at cisco.com<mailto:nikacost at cisco.com>
CC: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20150818/2ad3cd95/attachment-0001.html>