Open Stack

Feel free to submit a ticket to speakersupport at openstack.org with the 
details on the possible duplicate and we can have a look.

Jimmy
> Christian Berendt <mailto:berendt at betacloud-solutions.de>
> February 10, 2017 at 9:22 AM
>
> I already proposed a few track changes and I think I identified a 
> duplicate. At the moment I am not sure how to handle the possible 
> duplicate. For the moment I only added a note in the comments.
>
> Christian.
>
> Jimmy McArthur <mailto:jimmy at openstack.org>
> February 10, 2017 at 8:39 AM
> A quick reminder that the first review cycle isn't meant to be about 
> anything besides making sure the presentation is in the right category 
> and/or not a duplicate.
>
> Cheers,
> Jimmy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
> Julien Danjou <mailto:julien at danjou.info>
> February 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM
>
> Completely agreed and I find it funny because I already heard several
> reviewers stating they were checking that proposers "were good speakers"
> based on previous talks they did.
>
> (which I think is a terrible thing to do as nobody is gonna be a good
> speaker without _starting_ at some point).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-track-chairs mailing list
> Openstack-track-chairs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-track-chairs
> Ruben D. Orduz <mailto:rubenoz at gmail.com>
> February 9, 2017 at 3:23 PM
> All,
>
> Firstly: I apologize in advance if this ruffles any feathers and I'm 
> aware this is my first time as a track co-chair so I might be lacking 
> context and decisions that have been made in the past and am speaking 
> based on my 4-year experience as PyCon US Tutorials Chair.
>
> So, one of the main goals of a CFP system, specially one for open 
> source communities, should be to minimize the amount of subjective 
> decisions and prejudice in choosing proposals. This could be 
> accomplished a number of ways -- and admittedly none is perfect and 
> there's PROs and CONs to each.
>
> 1) Anonymize proposals in the first review cycle
> 2) Require a proposal format so that a proposals could be, in theory, 
> judged by anyone even if they don't know anything about the subject 
> matter based purely on structure and details (say, proposal A is a 
> better proposal than proposal B or C because it has a more detailed 
> outline and time budget)
> 3) Encourage/require speakers to post slides/videos from recent talks 
> or presentations (exceptions can be made for first-time speakers)
>
> And there's a few more things we could do to make the process fairer 
> and much less subjective than it currently is.
>
> So, for instance, after reviewing couple of dozen proposals in the 
> track I was assigned to I feel I could not make an informed and fair 
> decision on any of those proposals. Two-paragraph abstract and 4 
> bullet points is absolutely insufficient to say whether a proposal has 
> more merit than other in an objective manner. At this point I'm unsure 
> how to proceed without resorting to "I know this person", "that other 
> person is in marketing so probably not a good idea", "that person is a 
> PTL, so better give them a spot", etc. None of which should have place 
> in choosing proposals.
>
> Best,
> Ruben
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170210/4cfa696e/attachment.html>