On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
I feel like this system assumes bad faith on the part of the contributor (speaker, reviewer, and voter), and tries to enforce good behavior through rules and technology. I would rather we have a more public way of selecting track chairs and then have faith in them to evaluate talks objectively for relevance and quality, sharing guidance and feedback as part of the process.
Making the track chair selection process more public and open is certainly a good thing; I also wouldn't mind for the individual selections (shortlists) to be public. Doesn't really address Lana's point that the sheer number of submission makes it a challenge to review all submissions in a track diligently and carefully, but would be an improvement. Cheers, Florian