Open Stack

I've been reading/tracking this thread and want to say, thanks for working
through the dialog with such diplomacy. I've had a lot of the same
questions and it is enlightening to hear feedback from track chairs.

/adam
On Aug 31, 2015 7:42 PM, "Dave Neary" <dneary at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks Lauren,
>
> On 08/31/2015 07:57 PM, Lauren Sell wrote:
>
>>  From my perspective, the opportunity to vote on Summit sessions
>> provides a strong community feedback mechanism so it’s not just a small
>> group of people making decisions. It also provides a level of
>> transparency because all submitted sessions are published and available
>> to review, analyze, etc. (such as the keyword analysis several community
>> members perform each Summit, or how other community organizers mine the
>> information to recruit speakers for their own regional events). The
>> results give track chairs a starting point (or sometimes a tie breaker
>> when needed) and it helps them rule out sessions that have been
>> consistently poorly reviewed.
>>
>
> Back in February, during the voting process last time, I sent some
> feedback on the voting process to the community list - the main reasons I
> don't like the process are:
> * Having to hawk & promote proposal(s) is kind of unseemly, and makes us
> look small, I think. Hundreds of people going "vote for me!" doesn't
> make us look good.
> * Some people don't want to pitch themselves, others don't have access
> to as big a platform to promote
> * The same issues exist with this system which exist with board voting -
> there is a possibility that people will vote for their colleagues, not
> out of any corruption, but just because no-one has time to rate all the
> proposals, and they're more likely to rate those submitted by people
> they know more highly
> * Also, it's a self-selecting group of people who rate proposals - I
> don't think voters will be representative of summit attendees
> * After all is said and done, the proposals which are chosen by the
> voters are guidelines to the people who choose the talks for the tracks,
> the track leaders
>
> One more to add: this process encourages the kind of corporate
> divisiveness we should be trying to remove from OpenStack - every time,
> there's the "vote for the following proposals from your colleagues" emails,
> the blog post encouraging people to "vote for these 13 great proposals"
> which just happen to be the 13 from that company, etc. It's the worst of
> corporate jingoism, and (as I said) it doesn't make us look good.
>
> I'd much prefer that we just trust the track chairs to make good choices
> (which is, after all, what we do now).
>
> <snip>
>
> Finally, you can read more about the track chair and voting process at
>> this link:
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/tokyo-2015/selection-process/ (that’s
>> the unique URL, but it was also published on the Summit speaking
>> submission page and the Summit FAQ). To Steve’s point, it sounds like we
>> need to do a better job making that information more visible. To start,
>> we are planning to link to it from the schedule page as “How were these
>> sessions selected?”
>>
>
> I was not aware of the link above, and the Etherpad linked from there is
> great, but it's a little ephemeral - it would be great to have track chairs
> be more visible during the call for papers process.
>
> Thanks again,
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20150831/c8c69cdc/attachment.html>