[Openstack-track-chairs] Track Chair Feedback
Nick Chase
nchase at mirantis.com
Thu Aug 25 20:44:44 UTC 2016
On 8/25/2016 4:28 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
> I hope that the track chairs were not only selected on the basis of
> technical knowledge but on their integrity and of putting the summit &
> community ahead of company goals. I also think that the foundation has
> done a good job ensuring that different communities and companies are
> chosen, which hopefully avoids the ability of one company to push
> their talks over others. For me, I will never push a team talk unless
> the other track chairs have it under consideration, and if they do I'm
> happy to provide honest feedback on it. I hope fellow track chairs
> will concur with that.
Exactly!!
> Opening up a requirement that track chairs have to justify why they
> chose one talk over another will only foster further argument, it
> won't resolve anything. It's also untenable when rejecting 200 talks
> to justify the ranking of each one. And regardless of what you do and
> whether you justify your reasons or not, many good talks were not
> picked, and some feelings were probably hurt.
I'm not suggesting that we explain why talks were rejected, just why
they were SELECTED.
Feelings are always going to be hurt. I've already gotten 3 phone calls
from dejected colleagues who got their "sorry, no thanks" letter and
I've had to tell them, "Look, you're in good company." Hell, I didn't
get in either. :)
But while we've definitely been improving in the "transparency"
department, I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to go further.
---- Nick
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Nick Chase <nchase at mirantis.com
> <mailto:nchase at mirantis.com>> wrote:
>
> Well, when we were working on our track (both this time and for
> Austin) what we did was break it down into sections (for example,
> we might have 3 talks on "DevOps") and then try to choose a talk
> from each section. In some cases, we had to choose between
> similar talks, and discuss what our rationale was; it wouldn't be
> a bad thing to provide a place for track chairs to explain their
> choices. It would even provide a way for submitters to improve
> their submissions for next time.
>
> ---- Nick
>
>
> On 8/25/2016 3:50 PM, Shilla Saebi wrote:
>> I think we should come up with a way for track chairs who have to
>> make selections on talks that were submitted by members of their
>> own company or team to be fair. I noticed a few talks go through
>> where the track chairs worked for the same company as the talks
>> that were selected, and other talks with more complete abstracts
>> (in my opinion) and a more diverse set of speakers, was not
>> selected.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Nathan C Ziemann
>> <ziemann at us.ibm.com <mailto:ziemann at us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on export.
>>
>> We wrapped up our final selections using a spreadsheet which
>> makes it easy to evaluate multiple criteria and chair
>> votes/comments in one view.
>>
>> Nate Ziemann
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Nick Chase <nchase at mirantis.com
>> <mailto:nchase at mirantis.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually the last two summits tracks I've worked with have
>>> finished up in spreadsheets, where we've organized
>>> submissions by topic and marked off who voted for each. It
>>> really made the final processing easier.
>>>
>>> I'd love to see a simple "export" function so we don't wind
>>> up doing it by hand.
>>>
>>> ---- Nick
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016, Amrith Kumar
>>> <amrith at tesora.com <mailto:amrith at tesora.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On the whole, I think the process and the tool were
>>> fine, there were some hiccups that you have already
>>> identified.
>>>
>>> I found the user interface (specifically the two pane
>>> format and the sizing requirement) to be a little
>>> troublesome. Eventually I just grabbed the json off the
>>> interface and populated a spreadsheet and that worked
>>> out much easier.
>>>
>>> Why was that?
>>>
>>> I wanted to tag each of the 93 talks with a bunch of
>>> tags that I found to be useful, things like the names of
>>> the projects covered, sales-pitch, customer-story,
>>> performance, … and so on, and later filter talks based
>>> on those tags.
>>>
>>> So, if the next iteration of the tool had a way in which
>>> each chair could tag talks using an arbitrary (private)
>>> set of tags, that would be nifty.
>>>
>>> -amrith
>>>
>>> *From:*Kunzmann, Gerald
>>> [mailto:kunzmann at docomolab-euro.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 3:22 AM
>>> *To:* openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Track Chair Feedback
>>>
>>> +1 nice tool.
>>>
>>> Would be great to have a sort function e.g. by
>>> “community vote”.
>>>
>>> Gerald
>>>
>>> *From:*Travis McPeak [mailto:travis.mcpeak at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 02:02
>>> *To:* Christopher Aedo <doc at aedo.net>;
>>> openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Track Chair Feedback
>>>
>>> +1 great tool and easy process overall.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 4:47 PM Christopher Aedo
>>> <doc at aedo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you for all the hard work you've put into this
>>> tool (and all the
>>> other OpenStack bits you're always improving.) This
>>> was my second
>>> time around and I thought the tool worked great -
>>> looking forward to
>>> seeing even more improvements for Boston!
>>>
>>> Thank you Jimmy!
>>>
>>> -Christopher
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Jimmy McArthur
>>> <jimmy at openstack.org> wrote:
>>> > All -
>>> >
>>> > Thanks again for your hard (and quick!) work on
>>> the OpenStack Barcelona
>>> > Summit Track selections. You all did an amazing
>>> job and we're really
>>> > grateful to each of you.
>>> >
>>> > I took notes of feedback, but please feel free to
>>> add to the list if you
>>> > feel I've missed something:
>>> >
>>> > Better ability for Track Chairs to merge
>>> >
>>> > Option to email all speakers from one or more
>>> presentations
>>> > Ability for Speakers to submit/propose a new Title
>>> / Abstract as an
>>> > attachment or within the thread
>>> > Track Chairs ability to deactivate merged talks,
>>> and save one with new
>>> > abstract (or merge into a new record so we don't
>>> taint the originals)
>>> >
>>> > Email issues
>>> >
>>> > Track conversations with users within the Track
>>> Chair tool i/o just via
>>> > email. Could also consider using ZenDesk API for this?
>>> > There was a problem with Sendgrid API this go
>>> round, so there were just
>>> > generally problems. They were:
>>> >
>>> > No CC of other track chairs
>>> > Reply address was noreply at openstack.org i/o the
>>> ZenDesk ticket
>>> > Adding name of Presentation and other details
>>> automatically within the email
>>> > "Track chair XYZ has a question about your
>>> presentation: ABCD"
>>> > Email all speakers i/o just one
>>> >
>>> > Need the option back of being able to compare
>>> everyone's list side by side
>>> >
>>> > The new method of using the dropdown makes it
>>> difficult for the team to
>>> > compare selected talks
>>> > A way to auto-select common talks for placement in
>>> the team section would be
>>> > cool, or at least a way to quickly view that list,
>>> along with the # of team
>>> > members that selected each talk
>>> >
>>> > An option for a Track to "Close" their selections
>>> >
>>> > Send an email to track chairs list
>>> > Mark Track as "Closed" for non-admins
>>> >
>>> > Another suggestion for the Boston CFP process
>>> might be to consider separate
>>> > user and developer sub-tracks. For example. What
>>> might be considered a How
>>> > To/Best Practice for developers might be
>>> completely irrelevant to users.
>>> > We at Dev Tools track found out that there are a
>>> lot of drafts related to
>>> > the CI/CD and Testing processes. Seems reasonable
>>> to add such a track
>>> > (Deployment and Testing) as an option for the next
>>> summit. What do you
>>> > think?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thank you again!
>>> > Jimmy
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
>>> > Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
>>> >
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
>>> <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
>>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
>> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
>> <mailto:Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Nick Chase, Head of Technical and Marketing Content, Mirantis
> Editor in Chief, OpenStack:Unlocked
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs>
>
>
--
Nick Chase, Head of Technical and Marketing Content, Mirantis
Editor in Chief, OpenStack:Unlocked
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20160825/92d6aac4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Openstack-track-chairs
mailing list