[Openstack-track-chairs] the meaning of the 'How to contribute' track
John Griffith
john.griffith at solidfire.com
Tue Aug 18 14:55:13 UTC 2015
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Claire Massey <claire at openstack.org> wrote:
> HI Nate and everyone,
>
> Yes, you will. Early next week we will send you a survey to complete so
> that you can provide specific feedback for each of these topics. We’re
> always looking to improve the process and tools and definitely want to
> gather your thoughts while they’re top of mind!
>
> However, it’s also great to see that you're making real use of this
> mailing list too. =)
>
> Cheers,
> Claire
>
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Nathan C Ziemann <ziemann at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> +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* <https://twitter.com/nate_zman>
>
>
> <graycol.gif>"Fischer, Matt" ---08/17/2015 09:21:28 PM---I found that it
> was difficult to discard bad talks in our track, but that’s just a tooling
> issue. Ju
>
>
> 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*
> <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, August 17, 2015 at 6:36 PM
> *To: *Mark Collier <*mark at openstack.org* <mark at openstack.org>>
> *Cc: *"*openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org*
> <openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>" <
> *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*
> <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* <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*
> <bluejay.ahn at gmail.com>>
> * Date: *Monday, August 17, 2015 at 3:47 PM
> * To: *"Clark, Robert Graham" <*robert.clark at hp.com* <robert.clark at hp.com>>,
> Egle Sigler <*ushnishtha at hotmail.com* <ushnishtha at hotmail.com>>,
> Stefano Maffulli <*stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com*
> <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>>, Niki Acosta nikacost <
> *nikacost at cisco.com* <nikacost at cisco.com>>
> * Cc: *"*openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org*
> <openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>" <
> *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* <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*
> <ushnishtha at hotmail.com>]
> * Sent:* 17 August 2015 19:21
> * To:* Stefano Maffulli; Niki Acosta nikacost
> * 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
>
> 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*
> <stefano.maffulli at dreamhost.com>
> To: *nikacost at cisco.com* <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
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Niki Acosta (nikacost) <
> *nikacost at cisco.com* <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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
>
> *http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs*
> <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Awesome!! Thanks Claire, I'll save my views on "votes" for the survey :)
Also, rumor has it that we may actually be able to try and institute a
feedback mechanism for the attendees this time around? In my opinion that
could be an extremely valuable tool.
Anyway... thanks!
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20150818/9d598e77/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Openstack-track-chairs
mailing list