Open Stack

On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 09:27 -0600, John Griffith wrote:
> You are exactly correct Thierry, being a track chair a few times in
> the process has been something like:
> * PIck a cut off based on votes
> * Review remaining submissions as a panel

I followed a different process when I've been track-chair, one that
doesn't look much at the results of public voting:

 - Establish a "Theme" with fellow co-chair, a sort of objective for the
tracks we want to have presented to the public. 
 - Ignore the popularFor example, I look at the popularity of videos in
the tracks I chaired as feedbackFor example, I look at the popularity of
videos in the tracks I chaired as feedbackity contest
 - Evaluate every single proposal submitted against the objective
defined above
 - Rank the  proposals
 - Look at the results of the popularity contest to unblock difficult
decisions and disagreements.

All track chairs are instructed to look at the results of the voting
sessions but not to consider those more than another tool to help them
make hard decisions. For example, I also looked at the popularity of
recorded videos to gauge the interests in a topic or the skills of a
speaker.

The public voting gets people to talk about the summit, gives them an
excuse to promote their creations and ultimately is fun. It's not meant
to be serious otherwise it would be work :)

/stef