Open Stack

Folks -
I will weigh in on this topic as well.  Agree with the others that 
limiting the number of submissions for session for each person to 3-4 as 
others have said seems reasonable.  That would allow people who are on 
panels (which I personally like to attend) to be able to participate in 
more sessions.

Also agree that some way to get more information about the person 
submitting the proposal would be appropriate.  I personally, unless I 
know the person will reject out of hand any submissions that are missing 
specific biographical information about why the person is qualified to 
present/discuss the proposed topic.  Maybe any proposals that are 
missing critical pieces of information, should be rejected before they 
even get to the vote.

I do not agree that the person needs to be vetted for their ability to 
lead/speak a session.  While we have had some weak presentations, I 
think that it is important to give people who might be shy/not 
comfortable with English/or otherwise not good presenters an opportunity 
to speak.  One suggestion is to offer a couple of webinar 
training/coaching sessions on how to deliver a dynamic session.  I would 
be happy to volunteer to put something like this together.  I have a 
teaching background and have done extensive coaching on this topic in 
the past.

As for the track chair process it has always been a bit of a mystery to 
me, but certainly the people I have worked with as track chairs have 
always been great to work with.  Also suggest we take all the 
suggestions about the tools that I and others developed to help with the 
process of winnowing down the hundreds of proposals so that will be 
easier to do.

Beth

On 12/9/2015 3:44 PM, Lauren Sell 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 <mailto: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

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________

Beth Cohen	
Luth Computer Specialists, Inc.
www.luthcomputer.com
15 Wellington Street
Arlington, MA 02476

bfcohen at luthcomputer.com
Cell 617-721-7256
781-646-4018
Twitter: @bfcohen
Skype: bfcohen100

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151209/b9d81e2e/attachment.html>