<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html"/>
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;"></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">On December 9, 2015 4:58:04 PM
"Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett@intel.com> wrote:</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">> I like the idea of
limiting the number of submissions per person.<br>
><br>
> If we wanted to go a step further, we could limit the number per
company, which would force each company to do their own internal vetting of
submissions.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">I would be concerned that this
further entrenches the idea that people who speak are doing so on behalf of
their companies. I realize the idea that all talks are for the greater
benefit of the community is a bit idealistic, but I think it's an ideal
worth fighting for. <br><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">><br>
> I also like having more information about the content for the proposed
session. I can recall discussions amongst the track chairs along the lines
of “..if the session was going to cover x, y and z, it would be a good
addition to round out content…”.<br>
><br>
> I also agree with Niki’s suggestion that we have a cut-off date for
trading sessions between tracks that is early enough for those sessions to
get due consideration. Also would want them to be very visible in the tool.<br>
><br>
> One more thing that would be good to have an automated way to detect
is identical session submissions for multiple tracks. Someone might submit
a proposal for Enterprise and Networking…would be good to know this, so the
track chairs can discuss best fit, if any.<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
> Carol<br>
><br>
> From: Salvatore Orlando [mailto:salv.orlando@gmail.com]<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 1:43 PM<br>
> To: Niki Acosta (nikacost)<br>
> Cc: openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next
Steps<br>
><br>
> I think the huge number of submissions that we get is kind of
reasonable, considering the importance of the Openstack summit event.<br>
> Nevertheless, it is more than fair to add some rigour to the
submission process.<br>
><br>
> The three proposed additional questions are good in my opinion. They
should actually be part of any talk abstract.<br>
> I think it could be worth trying to encourage submitters to add some
evidence of the meat behind the abstract being reviewed.<br>
> Examples of such evidence could be:<br>
> - code repositories<br>
> - blog posts<br>
> - whitepapers, academic papers, or technical reports<br>
> - previous related work<br>
> - videos, slides, etc.<br>
><br>
> I don't think this will lead to less submission, but would help the
track chairs team to "fast-reject" talks which appear to not have decent
standards.<br>
><br>
> This could be achieved with an "additional material" section.<br>
> Obviously I don't want to force submitters to disclose any
IP-protected material, though if that was the case a submission to the
openstack summit shouldn't probably even be considered.<br>
><br>
> For the track chairs team going through a nomination and selection
process each time sounds good to me. There are probably some open questions
around criteria for selecting chairs and confirming people who did the
chair duty in the previous cycle, but I guess the foundation already has a
process in place.<br>
><br>
> For the public voting system, I think it's useless at the moment. I
second the idea of having an interface where one could rank the talks
he/she is interested in and not rank at all the talks that are deemed not
good enough to be presented.<br>
><br>
> For the selection process from track chairs, I'do instead for a
process where talk proposal are evaluated first regardless of public voting
(scoring could be
"strong accept"/"weak accept"/"weak reject"/"strong reject"/"definitely meh").
And then accepted talks can be ranked to fill available slots taking also
into account, if useful, the public voting outcome.<br>
><br>
> On another note... do we have the feedback from the Tokyo talks? I'd
like to see what the audience thought of the talks that were selected.<br>
><br>
> Salvatore<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 9 December 2015 at 21:55, Niki Acosta (nikacost)
<nikacost@cisco.com<mailto:nikacost@cisco.com>> wrote:<br>
> My thoughts, for what its worth:<br>
><br>
> Cap it at three submissions per person, including panels.<br>
> Strongly discourage straight up product-pitching sessions.<br>
> Would be cool to review sessions to take a first pass at what actually
makes it to voting. There were far too many sessions to vote on.<br>
> The voting system is kinda painful. It would be useful to see a list
of sessions for any given track and stack rank them, versus voting on them
one by one.<br>
> Requirement to the submission form: allow someone to post a link
to a previous recorded presentation. It would be helpful for trackchairs to
review in the event there’s a tie.<br>
><br>
> Also— I’ve noticed that some track reassignments happened too late— in
some cases, after final selections had been made. We should really press
for a cutoff date for track re-assignments that is far enough in advance of
the final selections deadline to make sure track chairs are considering all
of the sessions in the track.<br>
><br>
> :)<br>
><br>
> Niki Acosta<br>
> Cloud Evangelist<br>
> Cisco Intercloud Services<br>
> (e) nikacost@cisco.com<mailto:nikacost@cisco.com><br>
> (c) (+1) 512-912-6716<tel:%28%2B1%29%20512-912-6716><br>
> (t) @nikiacosta<br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Lauren Sell
<lauren@openstack.org<mailto:lauren@openstack.org>><br>
> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM<br>
> To:
"openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org>"
<openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org>><br>
> Subject: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next
Steps<br>
><br>
> Hello Tokyo Summit track chairs,<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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:<br>
> 1. Do we want to cap the number of sessions that each person can
submit at 5?<br>
> 2. Do we want to add any questions or requirements to the submission
form? See suggestions below.<br>
><br>
> 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:<br>
><br>
> * Session Title<br>
> * Session level (beginner, intermediate,
advanced)<br>
> * Abstract<br>
> * Short Description (450 characters max for
YouTube and mobile app)<br>
> * Select track from dropdown<br>
> * Tags<br>
> 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:<br>
><br>
> * Who is the intended audience for your
session? Please be specific.<br>
> * What is the problem or use case you’re
addressing in this session?<br>
> * What should attendees expect to learn?<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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@openstack.org<mailto:summit@openstack.org>) and hope to have
track chairs decided by mid-January. Any thoughts on the process?<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Lauren<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list<br>
>
Openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org<mailto:Openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org><br>
> <a
href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ----------<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list<br>
> Openstack-track-chairs@lists.openstack.org<br>
> <a
href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs</a><br>
><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>