Open Stack

On 2015-08-30 18:52:22 -0400 (-0400), Steve Gordon wrote:
> The assertion that "your vote doesn't count" came from emails from
> not one but two former track chairs in this thread, so it's
> certainly the case for at least some tracks.

If you're referring to my E-mail[1] (wherein I referred to the
community votes being "purely advisory") as indicating that they do
not count at all, then either you're mischaracterizing what I said
or I did a poor job of saying it. I certainly took votes on
abstracts under advisement, but also considered the fact that
they're easy to game and popularity contests are not the best way to
curate talks for a conference track.

> I myself am not actually questioning the process as it exists
> today, putting those comments aside at least, but rather whether
> the process is documented.
[...]

The process is basically:

1. Use your best judgement.

2. When in doubt, refer to #1.

We have track chairs for a reason. It's their responsibility to
decide what talks will end up in their tracks. Heaping rules and
process on them is only likely to hamper their efforts to make the
conference the best it can be. If you're dissatisfied with the
outcome, then volunteer to be a track chair next time.

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/community/2015-August/001263.html
-- 
Jeremy Stanley