Open Stack

On 08/31/2015 04:57 PM, Lauren Sell wrote:
>
> Sorry, I was out of the office the end of last week, and am catching
> up on this thread today. I’ll jump in with a few comments and updates
> from a Summit organizer perspective.
>
> 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.
>
> Second, to the initial question from Richard Raseley that started the
> thread, we have not historically published voting results by session,
> but are looking into generating a report (probably a quick and dirty
> CSV) with the session title, track, vote average & number of votes
> cast to share with the community for analysis, as well as the
> aggregate number of votes cast of course. This is the information that
> has been available to track chairs in their selection tool, and I
> think it makes sense to publish it more broadly, especially for
> speakers who might be interested in feedback on their session. In the
> future, I would love to be able to support some kind of comment
> feature with the voting tool, because I think that feedback could be
> valuable to the track chairs and speakers.
>
> 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?”
>
> The Summit team is always open to feedback and iterating the processes
> each cycle as the community continues to grow and change. Thanks for
> all the comments and input!
Lauren,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Publishing the results in the way
you described above would be excellent. I'll stay tuned for that
information.

Regards,

Richard

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20150901/3d74b9a7/attachment.pgp>