Open Stack

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think limiting votes only to people who submit talks would lead to
> people/companies submitting poor talks just to get a vote (gaming the
> system).

That's a fair point. However, reviewers could separately flag
proposals that don't meet certain quality criteria. (*Some* formal
criteria could even be checked by computers, not humans.) And there
could be a rule that if, say, the majority of a talk's (anonymous)
reviewers flag foul play, all the proposer's proposals *and* all and
the proposer's votes would be invalidated. I think that would be a
fairly strong deterrent. And in order to deter abuse of *that* system,
the event of a proposer being thus sin-binned should probably be
reviewed by a panel of some description.

> Voting on a random subset of the talks, rather than all seems like a great
> idea though - I suspect most people flick through for the few talks they
> know they're interested in, maybe vote for some more from their company,
> then stop, because there are so many. Giving each voter a choice of half a
> dozen or a dozen talks to vote on (or rank) could lead to much broader
> participation.

Bonus points for being able to preselect tracks for review. As in, I'd
like my random selection just from track A (because I consider myself
an expert only in A), or from tracks A, B, C, or from all tracks.

But I submit that even that would work best if only proposers vote.

Cheers,
Florian