Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Raseley" <richard at raseley.com>
> To: community at lists.openstack.org
> 
> On 08/28/2015 10:24 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > If we had the data we may be able prove this assumption by checking for
> > example if the higher amount of votes went to the proposals pushed by
> > corporations with an organized marketing machine.
> 
> That would be an interesting use for the data.
> 
> > That's what I've always done too. I ignore votes as a track chair.
> >
> > I think the voting process is a celebration of our community, a party, a
> > ritual to get into the 'summit season; it's not a useful tool to evaluate
> > proposals.
> 
> I understand that the track chairs have wide discretion in the selection
> of sessions, which seems appropriate. That being said, I am a little
> surprised at the casual nature with which current and former track
> chairs have talked about how they outright 'ignore votes'.
> 
> As a foundation member (I assume voting is restricted to foundation
> members), I was under the impression that my vote would always count at
> least a little bit (e.g. as a small part of some weighted score). If
> that is not the case I think it would be appropriate to set those
> expectations, as I am guessing that may others might be under the same
> misapprehension.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Richard

+1, while I've known this for a number of cycles I regularly encounter members of the Foundation who don't. It's not like this is ever broadcast anywhere except casually in email threads such as this one (usually with the implication that the person asking the question should somehow have known/expected their vote wouldn't count), have I missed it and there is in fact a public page documenting the talk selection process?

Thanks,

Steve