Open Stack

> On Dec 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Fischer, Matt <matthew.fischer at twcable.com> wrote:
> 
> First I think we need an etherpad for this. This thread is already unwieldy. Any objections to making one?
Good idea!  That way we can list all suggestions and others can add a +1 to show support.
> 
> Second, I agree with many of the points but limiting by company doesn’t work very well. Should Time Warner Cable get as many speaking slots as RedHat or Mirantis? I figure probably not. Limiting by person makes more sense. Doing anymore than 2-3 talks its difficult to give a good presentation.
> 
> I also like good speakers, speakers make the session more than content, but would like a way for new speakers to also participate, especially as co-presenters, it’s a great way to get experience.
> 
> Also +1 on requiring more information up front like Niki&Salvatore said. This should improve quality and raise the bar on making a submission which should reduce entries.
> 
> Finally +1 on moving stuff around tracks happening WAY too late. That needs to be way sooner. We ran out of time in my track to get some things moved.
> 
> From: "Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett at intel.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:57 PM
> To: Salvatore Orlando <salv.orlando at gmail.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] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps
> 
> I like the idea of limiting the number of submissions per person.
>  
> If we wanted to go a step further, we could limit the number per company, which would force each company to do their own internal vetting of submissions.
>  
> I also like having more information about the content for the proposed session. I can recall discussions amongst the track chairs along the lines of “..if the session was going to cover x, y and z, it would be a good addition to round out content…”.
>  
> I also agree with Niki’s suggestion that we have a cut-off date for trading sessions between tracks that is early enough for those sessions to get due consideration. Also would want them to be very visible in the tool.
>  
> One more thing that would be good to have an automated way to detect is identical session submissions for multiple tracks. Someone might submit a proposal for Enterprise and Networking…would be good to know this, so the track chairs can discuss best fit, if any.
>  
> Thanks
> Carol
>  
> From: Salvatore Orlando [mailto:salv.orlando at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 1:43 PM
> To: Niki Acosta (nikacost)
> Cc: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps
>  
> I think the huge number of submissions that we get is kind of reasonable, considering the importance of the Openstack summit event.
> Nevertheless, it is more than fair to add some rigour to the submission process.
>  
> The three proposed additional questions are good in my opinion. They should actually be part of any talk abstract.
> I think it could be worth trying to encourage submitters to add some evidence of the meat behind the abstract being reviewed.
> Examples of such evidence could be:
> - code repositories
> - blog posts
> - whitepapers, academic papers, or technical reports
> - previous related work
> - videos, slides, etc.
>  
> I don't think this will lead to less submission, but would help the track chairs team to "fast-reject" talks which appear to not have decent standards.
>  
> This could be achieved with an "additional material" section.
> Obviously I don't want to force submitters to disclose any IP-protected material, though if that was the case a submission to the openstack summit shouldn't probably even be considered.
>  
> For the track chairs team going through a nomination and selection process each time sounds good to me. There are probably some open questions around criteria for selecting chairs and confirming people who did the chair duty in the previous cycle, but I guess the foundation already has a process in place.
>  
> For the public voting system, I think it's useless at the moment. I second the idea of having an interface where one could rank the talks he/she is interested in and not rank at all the talks that are deemed not good enough to be presented.
>  
> For the selection process from track chairs, I'do instead for a process where talk proposal are evaluated first regardless of public voting (scoring could be "strong accept"/"weak accept"/"weak reject"/"strong reject"/"definitely meh"). And then accepted talks can be ranked to fill available slots taking also into account, if useful, the public voting outcome.
>  
> On another note... do we have the feedback from the Tokyo talks? I'd like to see what the audience thought of the talks that were selected.
>  
> Salvatore
>  
>  
> On 9 December 2015 at 21:55, Niki Acosta (nikacost) <nikacost at cisco.com> wrote:
> My thoughts, for what its worth: 
>  
> Cap it at three submissions per person, including panels. 
> Strongly discourage straight up product-pitching sessions. 
> Would be cool to review sessions to take a first pass at what actually makes it to voting. There were far too many sessions to vote on. 
> The voting system is kinda painful. It would be useful to see a list of sessions for any given track and stack rank them, versus voting on them one by one. 
> Requirement to the submission form:  allow someone to post a link to a previous recorded presentation. It would be helpful for trackchairs to review in the event there’s a tie. 
>  
> Also— I’ve noticed that some track reassignments happened too late— in some cases, after final selections had been made. We should really press for a cutoff date for track re-assignments that is far enough in advance of the final selections deadline to make sure track chairs are considering all of the sessions in the track. 
>  
> :)
>  
> Niki Acosta
> Cloud Evangelist
> Cisco Intercloud Services
> (e) nikacost at cisco.com
> (c) (+1) 512-912-6716
> (t) @nikiacosta 
>  
>  
> From: Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM
> To: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org" <openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps
>  
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 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/20151209/22cd38f9/attachment-0001.html>