[Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next Steps
Daniel Krook
krook at us.ibm.com
Thu Dec 10 17:30:01 UTC 2015
There are a lot of great ideas in this thread and the parallel responses.
Picking the best of these ideas is almost as much work as selecting
presentations. :)
I agree it's time to consolidate them into an Etherpad to see we can "vote"
on the ideas by the end of the week before the Austin CfP goes out.
My own take:
- I like the idea to add the additional questions in Lauren's original
email, and the idea of optional fields for "extra credit" highlighting
speaking experience at previous Summits, meetups, recorded demos, etc. We
recommend that submitters include much of that information to create strong
abstracts in the some of our guidance anyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFYNZ4jqik
- Moving talks or somehow autocategorizing talks between tracks could be
smoother. I don't like seeing a whole new slew of talks that were moved in
at the last minute after I've done an initial ranking. As a chair on the
Related OSS track, I'm also not 100% sure when a particular talk should be
in my talk or Containers (e.g. Docker) or Operations (e.g. SaltStack).
Maybe a co-vote between tracks and track chairs on content that sits in the
gray areas? Maybe we add an "uncategorized/waivers bucket" and have track
chairs proactively "draft/categorize" the talks they think fit into their
own track that may have been "cut/decategorized" from another talk?
- We should require presenters to submit an early draft a week ahead of the
event, like the Linux Foundation CfP site does. This forces speakers to at
least submit a semi-complete outline (beneficial whether it's a weak talk
at that point or they are procrastinators, it could also tilt their hand on
marketing content, and possibly give them a less stressful Summit attending
experience (more time to attend other talks rather than work on their own
talk)). But this would still allow for up to-the-minute of the talk
refinements, as the submitter controls the device used to do the actual
presentation. This also somewhat mitigates the problem of biting off more
than they can chew if giving more than one presentation by forcing them to
create content earlier.
- While I think 2 presenters is an ideal limit for speakers per talk, I'm
OK with allowing for up to 4, as this provides an opportunity for more
experienced presenters to mentor younger co-speaking colleagues and to
attribute talks to those who are shy or otherwise can't attend the Summit
(but contributed to talk content nonetheless).
- For the same reason, I don't like the idea of limiting submissions per
person (or number of talks for which they are an additional speaker). In
some talks they may be the main presenter, others a minor co-presenter and
possibly mentoring others, or they were reached out with for their opinion
to strengthen a panel submitted by someone else.
- For those two reasons and the logistical questions several already raised
by others, I don't think we should limit submissions by company
affiliation.
- I personally think there's some value in the community voting, and that
should influence the initial ordering of what the track chairs see when
they log in the very first time, but I understand it's not a common
opinion. :)
Thanks,
Daniel Krook
Senior Software Engineer, IBM Cloud
Distinguished IT Specialist (The Open Group & IBM Senior Certified)
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/krook IBM
Twitter: http://twitter.com/danielkrook Github:
http://github.com/krook Meetup:
http://www.meetup.com/members/13919430/
SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/danielkrook
krook.info
From: Kendall Waters <kendall at openstack.org>
To: Salvatore Orlando <salv.orlando at gmail.com>
Cc: "openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org"
<openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org>
Date: 12/10/2015 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Openstack-track-chairs] Call for Speakers Feedback, Next
Steps
Hi Salvatore,
The session feedback response rate from Tokyo was much lower than expected.
This may be partly due to the wifi quality at the Summit as well as the
unreliable mobile app. It could also be that attendees simply didn’t know
about it. We are hard at work building a new mobile app for the Austin
Summit, which will have feedback forms for each session built into the app.
We also plan to shorten the feedback survey to just 2 questions where the
attendee can rate the session and then leave text feedback if desired. We
are hoping this will increase the response rate in Austin and help track
chairs during the selection process in the future.
Cheers,
Kendall
Kendall Waters
OpenStack Marketing
kendall at openstack.org
On Dec 9, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Salvatore Orlando <salv.orlando at gmail.com
> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0E327443.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 518 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0E696251.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 638 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0E483644.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0007.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0E434558.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0008.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0E317065.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 470 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0009.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0E100292.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-track-chairs/attachments/20151210/825fdeb4/attachment-0003.gif>
More information about the Openstack-track-chairs
mailing list
