Open Stack

On 18/05/16 11:10, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 12:07 PM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/16 09:14, Florian Haas wrote:
>>> On 05/18/2016 12:24 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>>>> On 05/17/2016 12:40 PM, Claire Massey wrote:
>>>>> With the growing number of speaking submissions (we had 1,300 for
>>>>> Austin), some community members have expressed concerns about social
>>>>> media channels and email getting spammed during the week of voting. We
>>>>> also think many community members are unclear as to how much the votes
>>>>> weigh on the final decision. For example, some think that if someone
>>>>> campaigns for votes or asks their colleagues to vote, the session will
>>>>> likely be accepted (which may not be the case).
>>>> I have always considered the public voting a celebration of the success
>>>> of the summit and nothing else. It's a ritual for the OpenStack
>>>> community: twice a year we ask speakers to propose their talks and we
>>>> celebrate all of the submissions. In this celebration, people from
>>>> anywhere (the crowd) give their opinions...
>>>>
>>>> The rituals and the celebrations contribute to define communities,
>>>> online and not.
>>>>
>>>> I've argued at length that the crowd's votes are a by-product of the
>>>> celebration and are to be discarded by the track chairs.
>> If this is only for publicity - then it could be considered a complete
>> and total
>> waste of time to even start the voting process.
>>
>> Promote the sessions. Asking people to vote and then throw their efforts
>> and opinion
>> away could actually be considered an insult.
>>
>> For what it is worth - I personally think we should do away with it all
>> together
> I agree that having a voting system and then ignoring the votes may be
> insulting. You say you're in favor of nixing voting altogether -- would
> you mind explaining your rationale?
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
>
Let me clarify my statement.

In the current format - where the votes are more or less ignored by the
track owners
and the they are there for 'eye candy' - then I think there is
absolutely no benefit in
using the voting process.

As far as I understand - that is the situation today. The votes have no
official weight or
influence on the sessions that will be selected. Track chairs have

If we can come to an agreed format that the votes DO have say - but NOT
the only or
main criteria - then it is worthwhile.

>From the selection process [1]

Track Chairs will receive a slate of presentations to review and they
will determine the final schedule. Community votes are meant to **help
inform the decision, but are not the only guide**. Track chairs are
expected to exercise judgment in their area of expertise and help ensure
diversity. Real-world user stories and in-the-trenches experiences are
favored over sales pitches.

This is so ambiguous - and completely unclear


[1]
https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/categories/selection-process


-- 
Best Regards,
Maish Saidel-Keesing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20160518/05073512/attachment.html>