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" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> 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 <wstev...@cloudops.com> 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.tutkow...@netapp.com>
>> 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" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
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" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
>> 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" <
>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> 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 <
>> m...@swen.io> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats!
>>>>>
>>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Swen
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>> us...@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> 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: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
