Open Stack

The questions I wanted answers to during selection last summit:

- Is this a talk about submitted, open code, something that will be open
code, or something proprietary?
- Has the thing being talked about actually been deployed in none-toy
environments?


As far as track chairs, if you want to keep things fresh then I'd suggest
not allowing track chairing for more than 3 summits in a row - it gives
enough overlap to pass knowledge and experience along, but prevents the
same people always doing it. At least one cycle off after 3 on means that
you can bring back people who've done it before if desired.

On 9 December 2015 at 22:44, Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org> wrote:

> Hello Tokyo Summit track chairs,
>
> We’re moving quickly to open the call for speakers for the Austin
> Summit next week and want to make sure we incorporate feedback from prior
> discussions on this list. Unfortunately, we didn’t have much turnout in
> Tokyo for the Summit tools & processes session, where we were hoping to
> facilitate more discussion. We only had two people show up (outside of
> Foundation staff), so we primarily discussed the mobile app and reviewed
> the prototype.
>
> Based on earlier feedback in this thread, there is a desire to manage the
> growing number of submissions while increasing the quality. We have two
> levers we could pull for the submission process, but need to make decisions
> by the end of this week:
> 1. Do we want to cap the number of sessions that each person can submit at
> 5?
> 2. Do we want to add any questions or requirements to the submission form?
> See suggestions below.
>
> For #2, we are already making a few minor changes this round to improve
> session tagging and ask speakers for “links to past presentations” and
> “areas of expertise.” For the session submission, we currently ask:
>
>    - Session Title
>    - Session level (beginner, intermediate, advanced)
>    - Abstract
>    - Short Description (450 characters max for YouTube and mobile app)
>    - Select track from dropdown
>    - Tags
>
> I would suggest consolidating the abstract and short description to be one
> question (because submitters often copy/paste it anyway), and then ask a
> few additional questions:
>
>    - Who is the intended audience for your session? Please be specific.
>    - What is the problem or use case you’re addressing in this session?
>    - What should attendees expect to learn?
>
> We are also making a few changes to the tracks, primarily grouping them
> into content categories to better promote and layout the content across the
> week.
>
> Finally, we will very soon need to select the next round of track chairs.
> The Foundation has typically accepted nominations from the community and
> appointed track chairs based on subject matter expertise, contributions,
> working group involvement, etc. To help bring in new perspectives, one
> proposal was to ask track chairs to decide two people from their team who
> would continue for the next cycle and nominate two new people from the
> community to keep things fresh. We’ve gotten a lot of feedback that another
> community vote for track chairs is not desirable, but we could more broadly
> communicate the window for nominations. We’re accepting nominations now
> (email summit at openstack.org) and hope to have track chairs decided by
> mid-January. Any thoughts on the process?
>
> Thanks,
> Lauren
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
>
>


-- 
-- 
Duncan Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151209/2b1aef4a/attachment.html>