Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeremy Stanley" <fungi at yuggoth.org>
> To: community at lists.openstack.org
> 
> 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'm not mischaracterizing anyone, as Dave pointed out two separate respondents in this thread explicitly noted both that they were track chairs and that they completely ignored the public vote. I'm also not even saying that's wrong in and of itself, because I happen to also believe that a popularity contest is a terrible 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.

I'm not even talking about documenting the process at that level of detail (though I don't think some of the tribal knowledge on this topic as common guidelines for new track chairs would hurt anyone), I'm talking about making it clear to both people submitting talks and those voting on them that:

a) Track chairs exist at all.

b) Popularity in the vote does not in and of itself ensure success.

More transparency on these two items would I believe clear up quite a bit of confusion but since you brought up volunteering perhaps we could even document who determines the track chairs... ;). Nobody seems to have issues clarifying these facts via semi-regular email threads like this one, so I'm not sure why setting these expectations up front (on the submission/voting websites and in the submission acknowledgement email) would be an issue?

Thanks,

Steve

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