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" <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is exactly it.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>
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" <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
> 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.tutkow...@netapp.com>
> 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" <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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
