Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:54 PM,  <Arkady_Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
> For reviews and acceptance it would be better to have blind review.
>
> No authors names, not affiliation. Just on the merit of submission.
>
> Then when submission is accepted then post names and affiliation.

We've had this discussion before, and I think this is a bad idea. The
quality of a talk is determined by that of the speaker at least as
much as by that of the content, and a speaker's past performance is
usually a good indicator of their future performance.

There are also practical aspects with your "blind review" suggestion:
speaker support would have to police talk proposals for any
speaker-identifying information that a proposer may have planted
there, before voting/review starts. Any proposer can take to social
media to "out" themselves or — worse — someone else as the originator
of a talk. Track chairs couldn't chat with colleagues about what talks
they submitted for fear of losing impartiality. The list goes on. But
overall I think the idea is just misguided and not in the interest of
our audience.

Cheers,
Florian