Open Stack

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Adam Lawson <alawson at aqorn.com> wrote:
> Call me a cynic and this may be an unfair statement but those people who
> present at every summit will continue to be chosen, only now at random. Just
> my unsubstantiated feelings on that subject.
>
> I've stopped raging against the machine long ago. ;)

So I'm seeing a disconnect here: we have some folks arguing any talk
selection process that is self-policing implies a lack of trust in
good faith and thus does more harm than good (Doug, Dave). We have
others indicating that from personal experience, good faith and
impartiality on everyone's part is already something we shouldn't
assume (Tristan, Adam). I realize I'm not quoting you directly, but
forgive me for paraphrasing/condensing/sharpening.

So to summarize, it looks like there are four options currently being discussed:

(1) Keep everything exactly as it has been (this implies rejecting
Claire's original proposal to drop voting).
(2) Drop voting, put everything in the track chairs' hands.
(3) Use some form of random talk selection, in combination with
submission pre-filtering and public comments.
(4) Use an approach where speakers vote on a random subset of talks
and rank them, also with public comments.

Out of those, (4) uses a self-policing review scheme, and (3) promises
to curb abuse and favoritism by effectively leaving things mostly to
chance. (3) and (4) can ultimately do without track chairs.

Just to get a reference gauge, would those following this discussion
respond with a ranking in order of preference?

Mine (from most preferred to least preferred) is 4, 3, 1, 2.

Cheers,
Florian