Open Stack

Le 19/05/2016 16:04, Florian Haas a écrit :
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Sylvain Bauza <sbauza at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Le 19/05/2016 15:19, Tristan Goode a écrit :
>>> So let me get this straight... You're proposing that only speakers vote
>>> for
>>> talks yeah?
>>>
>>> Because hey, fuck the audience right?
>>
>> I'd be totally opposed to that idea that would induce a clear bias.
>> Let me explain : while the Foundation is trusting a different set of people
>> at every Summit for each track, the above would create a define list of
>> people that would be quite the same for each Summit - because we know that
>> people naturally tend to prefer their own close relations.
> How is that a factor if out of hundreds of talks you only ever review
> 8-10, randomly selected? What are the odds that your own close
> relations will even be in the subset you review?

Because you're not randomly picking a list of talks when reviewing. You 
naturally tend to review the ones you feel good at, where you built your 
network and where you know people. Or, on the other hand, you naturally 
tend to select talks made either by your company peers, or the social 
network relatives you're close to.

Anyway, my point is that you're already biased when picking a subset of 
talks to vote to (because you can't, as an human, vote for 800+ talks). 
The vote itself is another bias, where you tend to +3 the ones you 
trust, because you know the proposer, and not because the proposed 
abstract is great.

>> Don't blame me, but I'm seeing this as an argument about how much we
>> currently trust the track chairs as non-biased people. FWIW, if we agree
>> with the fact that track chairs are good for their duty, why should we
>> change how we select them ?
>> Maybe the proposal is to leave the track chairs, and only allow votes from
>> previous speakers ? If so, that's even more terrible : we're moving from a
>> representative democracy (the track chairs) to an oligarchy.
> Nope, that's not my proposal. Mine isn't about previous speakers, it's
> about current talk submitters.

Fair point, that doesn't really change my opinion. My paranoid mind also 
leads me to consider a Foo company wanting to promote a certain talk by 
adding more talks hence more voters for that specific talk.

> Also, minor point. Track chairs are appointed, not elected. I'm not
> saying that this invalidates your point, but the analogy is off. Not
> as much a representative democracy as an aristocratic fiefdom. :)

Fair point.

> Cheers,
> Florian