Open Stack

I think the huge number of submissions that we get is kind of reasonable,
considering the importance of the Openstack summit event.
Nevertheless, it is more than fair to add some rigour to the submission
process.

The three proposed additional questions are good in my opinion. They should
actually be part of any talk abstract.
I think it could be worth trying to encourage submitters to add some
evidence of the meat behind the abstract being reviewed.
Examples of such evidence could be:
- code repositories
- blog posts
- whitepapers, academic papers, or technical reports
- previous related work
- videos, slides, etc.

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.

This could be achieved with an "additional material" section.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Salvatore


On 9 December 2015 at 21:55, Niki Acosta (nikacost) <nikacost at cisco.com>
wrote:

> My thoughts, for what its worth:
>
> Cap it at three submissions per person, including panels.
> Strongly discourage straight up product-pitching sessions.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> :)
>
> Niki Acosta
> Cloud Evangelist
> Cisco Intercloud Services
> (e) nikacost at cisco.com
> (c) (+1) 512-912-6716
> (t) @nikiacosta
>
>
> From: Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM
> To: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps
>
> 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-chairs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151209/8f5db791/attachment.html>