Open Stack

Agree, completely with my English friend here.

Asking for video of previous presentations (and therefor restricting speakers to only those more experienced) is an understandable idea but not one I agree with, I’ve personally seen several excellent first-time presentations at the summit over the last few years. In some cases these were speakers who I had provided coaching and feedback to.

Perhaps it’s worth considering offering some assistance to more novice presenters – this could be providing them with some milestone goals, or asking for a stub version of a presentation to see the flow or even finding time before the conference to do a dry run (either on site or more likely in a webex) – these are all things I’d be open to ahead of the conference.

One thing that I think would benefit the security track (and probably others) might be to decide on a few themes and make them known during the call for papers. At the moment we end up shaping the theme and flow of the talks based roughly on how the submissions are voted on, as we’ve already discussed the voting system is pretty non-deterministic in terms of the quality or subject of talks (though I expect this will be improved moving forwards) – this isn’t an idea that I’m particularly wedded to, I’m just throwing it out for discussion.

Cheers
-Rob




From: Henry Nash [mailto:henry.nash at uk.ibm.com]
Sent: 10 December 2015 09:09
To: openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps

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<mailto:robert.clark at hpe.com>>
To:        John Dickinson <me at not.mn<mailto:me at not.mn>>, "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>>
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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<mailto: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/20151210/269dc4ca/attachment-0001.html>