[Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to contribute' track
Nathan C Ziemann
ziemann at us.ibm.com
Tue Aug 18 09:20:23 UTC 2015
+1 on recommending tooling enhancements Matt recommends below. A way to
hide sessions that our track team reviewed and rejected during the
selection process would allow us to view the subset still under
consideration. The "new" tag was helpful, but I have to admit things
transferred into tracks way to late. We need to find a way to improve that
next year for sure.
+1 on well developed abstracts.
I'm hopeful we'll have a broader opportunity to share feedback on the
experience.
Nate Ziemann
Find me on Twitter @nate_zman
From: "Fischer, Matt" <matthew.fischer at twcable.com>
To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>, Mark Collier
<mark at openstack.org>
Cc: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org"
<openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
Date: 08/17/2015 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to
contribute' track
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>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2015 at 6:36 PM
To: Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org>
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
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.
_______________________________________________
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/20150818/bba3a085/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20150818/bba3a085/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the Openstack-track-chairs
mailing list
