Open Stack

So a couple 0.01 old English pennies:

+1 for limiting submissions to 3
+1 for limiting number of speakers to 3, except for panels (which I agree 
are good...although I'd love to encourage more question from the 
audience...rather than just moderator questions passed around)
-1 for limiting submissions by company (let's judge submissions on merit, 
not on source)
-1 for asking for video of previous talks (I absolutely get the goal of 
trying to get good speakers....I'm just concerned we raise the barrier too 
high for submission)
+1 for trying to get a better idea of the content from the submission 
(Maybe don't ask for a longer abstract, but have a section that asks for a 
simple bullet point list of the key topics covered?)

Henry



From:   "Clark, Robert Graham" <robert.clark at hpe.com>
To:     John Dickinson <me at not.mn>, 
"openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org" 
<openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
Date:   10/12/2015 01:08
Subject:        Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, 
Next Steps



I agree with Duncan's proposed questions and the idea of capping the 
number of submissions somewhere from 3-5 per person (per company doesn't 
work imho).

The biggest problem I've found as a track chair is not really knowing what 
a talk will focus on (or even what the content will be) from the abstract 
that's presented to me - this problem is significantly compounded when the 
talk gets many votes.

We certainly have to improve the quality of abstracts and we need a way to 
reduce the noise level that the voters are faced with. I'm a track chair 
and I could barely stand leafing through the many submissions on my chosen 
area of specialization (security) I can't imagine being your average 
attendee and really spending multiple hours voting on talks - that's just 
not realistic.

Cheers
-Rob

(Also +1 to an etherpad)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Dickinson [mailto:me at not.mn]
> Sent: 09 December 2015 22:34
> To: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next 
Steps
> 
> Is there a difference between "submitter" and "presenter"? eg in the 
past one person may submit a lot of talks, all with different presenters
> on them.
> 
> I like changing the incentivization away from the spaghetti approach 
(throw a bunch on the wall and see what sticks). Limiting submissions
> per person (and one person not being in more than a certain number of 
talks) is a good start.
> 
> 
> Another idea (one I'm much less sure of) is having track chairs or 
someone giving guidance for submissions. eg "In the storage track, we'd
> like to hear talks that (1) technically explain parts of the code or (2) 
describe a production deployment and how that contributed back
> upstream". I'm not entirely sure how that would end up resulting in a 
different final talk selection, but I'd hope it might raise the quality of
> submissions.
> 
> --John
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 Dec 2015, at 14:09, Kenneth Hui wrote:
> 
> > I would second the limit on number of submissions per person.
> >
> > Also, we may want to consider having a submitter upload or link to a 
video
> > of him or her presenting; this would help in assessing someone's 
ability to
> > present to an audience.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth Hui <ken at platform9.com> | Director of Technical Marketing and
> > Partner Alliances
> > Platform9 <http://platform9.com/> - *"Private Clouds Made Easy"*
> > (c) 347.997.0935  / (t) @hui_kenneth <https://twitter.com/hui_kenneth>
> >
> > Blogs:
> >
> > *http://blog.platform9.com/
> > <http://blog.platform9.com/>**http://cloudarchitectmusings.com/
> > <http://cloudarchitectmusings.com/>*
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Lauren Sell <lauren at openstack.org> 
wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> > 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



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/a990b9cf/attachment-0001.html>