OSDir


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

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions


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