On 05/18/2016 11:24 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Nick Chase <nchase@mirantis.com> wrote:
I, for one, am not fond of letting go of community involvement, for concern of never getting it back.
Cheers, Florian
I think that's a fair point, and another reason to enable comments instead of votes. People can not only feel involved but they will be making a more substantial contribution to the process.
Granted, this may not solve the "spam" issue, though, as people will still be soliciting comments. However it will be more clear that getting comments doesn't mean getting in, so there's less incentive.
---- Nick
So we currently have a fairly massive volume of submissions every Summit. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of J. Random Summit Attendee here, right after the CfP closes. What would be my motivation for commenting on a talk that I don't even know for sure will make it into the schedule? Content suggestions like "could you please talk about X as well" or "could you spend some time on Y" are great *after* the talk is confirmed. But while it's still being considered, the logical thing is to say something like "I'd love to see this" or "I'd not attend this" — which is exactly what we have with voting, now.
Thoughts?
Cheers, Florian
Given the massive volume of proposals, and the time pressure we all feel, I do not expect J. Random Summit Attendee to read / vote on / review all of the proposals. At best, they might look at all the proposals to the project(s) they are a contributor to, vote on them, and wonder if the track chairs will feel the same. But the situation we're in, I think, is that folks only vote on the talks that surface within their social network. I question whether that kind of limited exposure can allow for valuable feedback to be given to track chairs, even if we change the quality of the feedback from a "rate between 0 and 3" to a "fill in this text box". So, I think I agree with you on this, Florian. --devananda