Open Stack

On December 9, 2015 4:58:04 PM "Barrett, Carol L" 
<carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:

> I like the idea of limiting the number of submissions per person.
>
> 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.

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.



>
> 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…”.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks
> Carol
>
> From: Salvatore Orlando [mailto:salv.orlando at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 1:43 PM
> To: Niki Acosta (nikacost)
> Cc: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps
>
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:nikacost at cisco.com>
> (c) (+1) 512-912-6716<tel:%28%2B1%29%20512-912-6716>
> (t) @nikiacosta
>
>
> From: Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org<mailto:lauren at openstack.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM
> To: 
> "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>" 
> <openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<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<mailto:Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151209/27e9c6a8/attachment-0001.html>