Open Stack

Is there a difference between "submitter" and "presenter"? eg in the past one person may submit a lot of talks, all with different presenters on them.

I like changing the incentivization away from the spaghetti approach (throw a bunch on the wall and see what sticks). Limiting submissions per person (and one person not being in more than a certain number of talks) is a good start.


Another idea (one I'm much less sure of) is having track chairs or someone giving guidance for submissions. eg "In the storage track, we'd like to hear talks that (1) technically explain parts of the code or (2) describe a production deployment and how that contributed back upstream". I'm not entirely sure how that would end up resulting in a different final talk selection, but I'd hope it might raise the quality of submissions.

--John



On 9 Dec 2015, at 14:09, Kenneth Hui wrote:

> I would second the limit on number of submissions per person.
>
> Also, we may want to consider having a submitter upload or link to a video
> of him or her presenting; this would help in assessing someone's ability to
> present to an audience.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Kenneth Hui <ken at platform9.com> | Director of Technical Marketing and
> Partner Alliances
> Platform9 <http://platform9.com/> - *"Private Clouds Made Easy"*
> (c) 347.997.0935  / (t) @hui_kenneth <https://twitter.com/hui_kenneth>
>
> Blogs:
>
> *http://blog.platform9.com/
> <http://blog.platform9.com/>**http://cloudarchitectmusings.com/
> <http://cloudarchitectmusings.com/>*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:44 PM, 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151209/510b7491/attachment.pgp>