Open Stack

Hi,

On 08/31/2015 12:32 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> If you're referring to my E-mail[1] (wherein I referred to the
> community votes being "purely advisory")

Tristan Goode: "I was a track chair once upon a time and I completely 
ignored all the votes and voted for everything that was from Asia 
because I knew many of the other track chairs would wheel in the same 
old windbags that seem to get two, three or more slots every single summit."

Stefano Maffulli: "That's what I've always done too. I ignore votes as a 
track chair."


My personal experience (track chair 2 or 3 times) was to take votes for 
guidance, and to look for some voting red flags to dig deeper (deeply 
polarized votes, proposals with a very high number of votes, proposals 
that fare poorly because of a small number of votes) - generally, talks 
that were popular in voting got in, but occasionally we picked talks 
that fared very poorly for other reasons (topic/speaker/company 
diversity, or under-treated topics we thought were important).

One year I did it, I know that one track just chose the X highest 
scoring talks, while another track decided to completely ignore voting. 
I do not believe there is a consistent guidance or standard for this 
(but that may have changed). Personally I'd be happy doing away with 
voting altogether and leave it completely to the track selection groups.

Regards,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338