Open Stack

+1 on limiting number of talks per speaker
      (does not matter how many speakers are on a talk, a mention counts as 1)
+1 on track direction. It is no different from a conference theme. The idea behind the direction is what-is-important/burning-issue in that project. The sooner this is published, the more effective it is in guiding submission.
We do not need to make 100% of the talks in a session attached to the direction, may be 60% or 80%.

I do like being able to select speakers on their quality but do not want that to exclude new people, young people, non-native speakers who will still bring so much value. Perhaps we could offer some coaching practice via google hangouts etc a week or two before event for those requesting it.


And voting from an end user perspective is totally unmanageable.. just no way we can review 800+ talks and give some +1/-1. It has become a popularity context. :-(

Regards
Malini



-----Original Message-----
From: John Dickinson [mailto:me at not.mn] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 2:34 PM
To: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps

Is there a difference between "submitter" and "presenter"? e.g. 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-c
>> hairs
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-ch
> airs