Open Stack

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?

> 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.

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. :)

Cheers,
Florian