On 19/05/16 04:24, 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?
Regarding the massive quantity of submissions: I rely on people sending out lists of talk to vote on, because the sheer volume of talks to go through and vote on is so huge, and the signal:noise (talks I care about vs talks I have no interest in) is so vanishingly small as to make it not worth my time. I have too many code reviews waiting to go wading through talk voting for a whole afternoon. This is why the 'vote on a subset' idea really strikes me as valuable. If I could do it in fifteen minutes, then I totally would. L -- Lana Brindley Technical Writer Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia http://lanabrindley.com