git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions


Perfect…then, unless anyone has other opinions they’d like to share on the topic, let’s follow that approach.

On 4/5/18, 9:43 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner" <rafaelweingartner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    That is exactly it.
    
    On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
    wrote:
    
    > Hi Rafael,
    >
    > I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the final say on how
    > we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of ApacheCon in
    > Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage Apache’s normal
    > review process to gather all the feedback from the larger Apache Community.
    >
    > As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via that mechanism
    > and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could advertise on our users@
    > and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a call and make
    > final decisions on the CFP.
    >
    > Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?
    >
    > Talk to you soon,
    > Mike
    >
    > On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner" <rafaelweingartner@xxxxxxxxx>
    > wrote:
    >
    >     I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already signed up to
    >     review.
    >
    >     Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main
    > review
    >     system, and then we use that to decide which presentations will get in
    >     CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we also remove
    >     bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apache
    > community
    >     (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair and
    > technical
    >     (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
    >
    >     Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs to gather
    > the
    >     results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the ones to our
    >     tracks.
    >
    >     What do you (Mike) and others think?
    >
    >
    >     On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
    > Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
    >     wrote:
    >
    >     > Hi Ron,
    >     >
    >     > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have currently
    > signed
    >     > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I’m only
    > aware of
    >     > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
    >     >
    >     > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. We’re still
    > quite
    >     > early in the process.
    >     >
    >     > Thanks for your feedback,
    >     > Mike
    >     >
    >     > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    > wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
    >     >
    >     >     I don't think that scheduling is part of the review process and
    > that
    >     > can
    >     >     be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on behalf of
    > the PMC.
    >     >
    >     >     To me review is looking at content for
    >     >     - relevance
    >     >     - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to content,
    > English,
    >     >     graphics, etc.)
    >     >     This should result in a consensus score
    >     >     - Perfect - ready for prime time
    >     >     - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
    >     >     - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer could
    > volunteer
    >     >     to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
    >     >     - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
    >     >
    >     >     The reviewers could also make non-binding recommendations about
    > the
    >     >     balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
    >     >     Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, etc.
    > based on
    >     >     what they have seen.
    >     >
    >     >     This should be used by the organizers to make the choices and
    > organize
    >     >     the program.
    >     >     The organizers have the final say on the choice of presentations
    > and
    >     >     schedule
    >     >
    >     >     Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
    >     >
    >     >     I would be worried that you do not have enough reviewers rather
    > than
    >     > too
    >     >     many.
    >     >     Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
    >     >
    >     >     When planning meetings, I would recommend that you clearly
    > separate the
    >     >     roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about
    > review. Get
    >     >     the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide
    > if
    >     > there
    >     >     are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
    >     >     I would recommend that you keep the organizing group small.
    > Membership
    >     >     should be set by the PMC and should be people that are committed
    > to the
    >     >     ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can request
    > help for
    >     >     specific tasks from others in the community who are not on the
    >     > committee.
    >     >
    >     >     I would also recommend that organizers do not do reviews. They
    > should
    >     >     read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be a
    > suggestion of
    >     >     favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also ensures that
    > the
    >     >     organizers are not getting heat from rejected presenters - "it
    > is the
    >     >     reviewers fault you did not get selected".
    >     >
    >     >     My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so that no one
    > is
    >     >     essential and each reviewer has a limited number of
    > presentations to
    >     >     review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple people.
    > Also
    >     > bear
    >     >     in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to review
    > each
    >     >     presentation.
    >     >     Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary comments given
    > to the
    >     >     presenter. Reviewers of a presentation should be able to discuss
    > the
    >     >     presentation during the review to make sure that reviewers do
    > not feel
    >     >     isolated or get lost when they hit content that they don't
    > understand
    >     > fully.
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     Ron
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >     On 01/04/2018 12:20 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
    >     >     > Thanks for the feedback, Will!
    >     >     >
    >     >     > I agree with the approach you outlined.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Thanks for being so involved in the process! Let’s chat with
    > Giles
    >     > once he’s back to see if we can get your questions answered.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >> On Mar 31, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Will Stevens <
    > wstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >     > wrote:
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> In the past the committee was chosen as a relatively small
    > group in
    >     > order
    >     >     >> to make it easier to manage feedback.  In order to make it
    > fair to
    >     > everyone
    >     >     >> in the community, I would suggest that instead of doing it
    > with a
    >     > small
    >     >     >> group, we do it out in the open on a scheduled call.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> We will have to get a list of the talks that are CloudStack
    >     > specific from
    >     >     >> ApacheCon, but that should be possible.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Once we have the talks selected, then a smaller number of us
    > can
    >     > work on
    >     >     >> setting up the actual ordering and the details.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> I have been quite involved so far.  Giles and I have been
    >     > organizing the
    >     >     >> sponsors, website and dealing with ApacheCon so far.
    > Obviously,
    >     > Mike is
    >     >     >> also working on this as well.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> I think we are headed in the right direction on this.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Cheers,
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Will
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> On Mar 31, 2018 11:49 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <
    >     > Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
    >     >     >> wrote:
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Hi Ron,
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> I am definitely open to working this however makes the most
    > sense.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> It looks like Will’s e-mail indicates that the process I
    > suggested
    >     > has been
    >     >     >> followed in the past (which is how I recall, as well).
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Let’s make sure I understood Will correctly.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Will – Are you, in fact, indicating that what I was
    > suggesting is
    >     > how we
    >     >     >> have reviewed the CFP in the past? If so, are you able to
    > address
    >     > Ron’s
    >     >     >> concerns?
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Also, Will – I am not sure about a hackathon. Let’s chat with
    > Giles
    >     > once
    >     >     >> he’s back from vacation since he’s been the most involved with
    >     > organizing
    >     >     >> the CloudStack track within ApacheCon.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Thanks!
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> Mike
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >> On 3/31/18, 9:00 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <
    > rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >     > wrote:
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>     I am not sure about your concern in that case.
    >     >     >>     I am not sure why people not interested in Cloudstack
    > would
    >     > volunteer as
    >     >     >>     reviewers and want to pick bad presentations.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>     I would be more worried that there are not enough good
    >     > presentations
    >     >     >>     proposed rather than some meritorious presentation will
    > get
    >     > rejected due
    >     >     >>     to "outsiders" voting it down in favour of less useful
    >     > presentations.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>     It may be tricky to get balance if that means taking "bad"
    >     > proposals
    >     >     >>     that can not be fixed that cover topics that are in areas
    > that
    >     > are not
    >     >     >>     otherwise covered at the expense of great presentations
    > that
    >     > are in
    >     >     >>     areas with many choices.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>     We should wait to see how many presentations have to be
    >     > rejected and the
    >     >     >>     number of reviewers before getting too exercised over the
    >     > loyalty of
    >     >     >>     reviewers.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>     Getting more reviewers is likely the most effective way
    > to see
    >     > that a
    >     >     >>     wider range of topics is covered.
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>     Ron
    >     >     >>
    >     >     >>>     On 31/03/2018 7:15 PM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
    >     >     >>> Hi Ron,
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>  From what I understand, the CloudStack proposals will be
    > mixed in
    >     >     >> with all of the ApacheCon proposals.
    >     >     >>> In the past when I’ve participated in these CloudStack
    > panels to
    >     >     >> review proposals, we had to compare each proposal against the
    >     > others to
    >     >     >> arrive at a balance of topics (i.e. not all networking
    > focused, not
    >     > all
    >     >     >> XenServer focused, etc.) and to suggest improvements for
    > proposals
    >     > that we
    >     >     >> did not accept for other reasons.
    >     >     >>>  From what I understand (but Giles can comment further on
    > this), we
    >     >     >> have a track at ApacheCon and will need to fill it with X
    > number of
    >     >     >> presentations. To do this, it seems like a CloudStack-focused
    > panel
    >     > would
    >     >     >> be a good approach, but I am definitely open to another
    > approach.
    >     > We don’t
    >     >     >> want to exclude anyone (in or out of the CloudStack
    > Community) who
    >     > might
    >     >     >> like to provide input. Anyone who is interested would, of
    > course,
    >     > be free
    >     >     >> to join us in combing through the proposals.
    >     >     >>> We don’t need to get started on this right away. The CFP just
    >     > closed
    >     >     >> yesterday. Let’s wait for feedback from Giles (who is
    > currently on
    >     >     >> vacation) and go from there.
    >     >     >>> Thanks!
    >     >     >>> Mike
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>> On 3/31/18, 6:59 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <
    > rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >     > >
    >     >     >> wrote:
    >     >     >>>      Is this a real concern?
    >     >     >>>      Why would a large number of Apache contributors who are
    > not
    >     >     >> interested
    >     >     >>>      in Cloudstack (enough to outvote those "part of the
    > Cloudstack
    >     >     >>>      community") get involved as reviewers
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      Reviewing involves some commitment of time so I am hard
    >     > pressed
    >     >     >> to guess
    >     >     >>>      why some Apache contributor would volunteer to do the
    > work in
    >     >     >> order to
    >     >     >>>      veto a presentation that they have not yet seen or have
    > no
    >     >     >> interest in
    >     >     >>>      seeing.
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      Are we guaranteed a fixed number of hours of
    > presentations or
    >     > is
    >     >     >> the
    >     >     >>>      review process part of the allocation of overall time?
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      On what basis can some group veto a presentation?
    >     >     >>>      That would seem to be a very strong action and I would
    > hope
    >     > that
    >     >     >> it
    >     >     >>>      requires a strong reason.
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      OTOH if a large??? number of Apache contributors
    > (regardless
    >     > of
    >     >     >> their
    >     >     >>>      affiliation) say that a presentation has serious issues
    > or
    >     > very
    >     >     >> limited
    >     >     >>>      interest, that would seem to be a red flag that the
    >     > presentation
    >     >     >>>      requires improvement or needs to be dropped in favour of
    >     > another
    >     >     >>>      Cloudstack presentation, if it can not be fixed.
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      We should also be aware that this is an opportunity to
    >     > "market"
    >     >     >>>      Cloudstack to the broader Apache community.
    >     >     >>>      Outside reviewers might have valuable input into how
    >     >     >> presentations can
    >     >     >>>      attract new adopters or be clearer to the broader DevOps
    >     >     >> community.
    >     >     >>>      We also need to remember that we do have an active
    > community
    >     > and
    >     >     >> other
    >     >     >>>      opportunities during the year to present presentations
    > that do
    >     >     >> not get
    >     >     >>>      selected for this conference.
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      If their is a real fear that a lot of "outsiders" are
    > going to
    >     >     >> disrupt
    >     >     >>>      the review process, a more reasonable response would
    > seem to
    >     > be
    >     >     >> to get
    >     >     >>>      more reviewers from the community.
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      I have volunteered already.
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>      Ron
    >     >     >>>
    >     >     >>>>      On 30/03/2018 11:11 PM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
    >     >     >>>> Hi Rafael,
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>> It’s a little bit tricky in our particular situation. Allow
    > me
    >     >     >> to explain:
    >     >     >>>> As you are likely aware, the CloudStack Collaboration
    >     >     >> Conference will be held as a track in the larger ApacheCon
    >     > conference in
    >     >     >> Montreal this coming September.
    >     >     >>>> It is true, as you say, that anyone who wishes to do so can
    >     >     >> contribute to reviewing the CFP for ApacheCon.
    >     >     >>>> What is a bit of a concern, however, is that we might get
    >     >     >> certain CloudStack CFP proposals vetoed by people who are
    > not, per
    >     > se, a
    >     >     >> part of our community.
    >     >     >>>> That being the case, I have contacted the organizers for
    >     >     >> ApacheCon to see if there is some way we can section off the
    >     > CloudStack CFP
    >     >     >> from the larger ApacheCon CFP for review purposes.
    >     >     >>>> Assuming we can do this, the panel that I am proposing here
    >     >     >> would handle this review task.
    >     >     >>>> I hope that helps clarify the situation.
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>> Thanks!
    >     >     >>>> Mike
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>> On 3/30/18, 8:38 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner" <
    >     >     >> rafaelweingartner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >     >     >>>>      Are we going to have a separated review process?
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>>      I thought anybody could go here [1] and apply for a
    >     >     >> reviewer position and
    >     >     >>>>      start reviewing. Well, that is what I did. I have
    > already
    >     >     >> reviewed some
    >     >     >>>>      CloudStack proposals (of course I did not review
    > mines).
    >     >     >> After asking to
    >     >     >>>>      review presentations, Rich has giving me access to the
    >     >     >> system. I thought
    >     >     >>>>      everybody interest in helping was going to do the same.
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>>      [1]
    >     >     >> https://cfp.apachecon.com/conference.html?apachecon-
    >     > north-america-2018
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>>      On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Swen - swen.io <
    >     >     >> me@xxxxxxx> wrote:
    >     >     >>>>> Hi Mike,
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> congrats!
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> Best regards,
    >     >     >>>>> Swen
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
    >     >     >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx]
    >     >     >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
    >     >     >>>>> An: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
    >     >     >> users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >     >     >>>>> Betreff: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation
    >     >     >> Submissions
    >     >     >>>>> Hi everyone,
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> As you may be aware, this coming September in Montreal,
    >     >     >> the CloudStack
    >     >     >>>>> Community will be hosting the CloudStack Collaboration
    >     >     >> Conference:
    >     >     >>>>> http://ca.cloudstackcollab.org/
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> Even though the event is six months away, we are on a
    >     >     >> tight schedule with
    >     >     >>>>> regards to the Call For Participation (CFP):
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> https://www.apachecon.com/acna18/schedule.html
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> If you are interested in submitting a talk, please do
    >     >     >> so before March 30th.
    >     >     >>>>> That being said, as usual, we will have need of a small
    >     >     >> committee to sort
    >     >     >>>>> through these presentation submissions.
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> If you are interested in helping out in this process,
    >     >     >> please reply to this
    >     >     >>>>> message.
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>> Thanks!
    >     >     >>>>> Mike
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>>
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>>      --
    >     >     >>>>      Rafael Weingärtner
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>>
    >     >     >>>
    >     >
    >     >     --
    >     >     Ron Wheeler
    >     >     President
    >     >     Artifact Software Inc
    >     >     email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    >     >     skype: ronaldmwheeler
    >     >     phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >
    >
    >     --
    >     Rafael Weingärtner
    >
    >
    >
    
    
    -- 
    Rafael Weingärtner