Allowing everyone to rate every session will always result in an average of accept. I recommend the individual track leads make a judgement call. They can consult with any experts they feel they should
We want great content, not averaged content. The model we use in GSoC works well (the mentors have way more influence than anyone else, here it should be track chairs). That's how I'm going to do my track. I'll review peoples comments and use them as a guide, but I will not be ruled by them. I encourage other chairs to do the same. (as does Rich below) Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Rich Bowen<mailto:rbo...@rcbowen.com> Sent: 2/5/2015 8:39 AM To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> Subject: Re: ApacheCon Austin Reviewing On 01/31/2015 11:40 AM, Marshall Schor wrote: > Hi, > > I was able to get two people to submit UIMA talks. I've signed up as a > "reviewer", but have never done this before, and am looking for some guidance, > timelines, etc. So I have some basic questions. If these have been already > answered somewhere, please post a pointer to the definitive site / email :-). Yeah, we should really document this somewhere. In the ApacheCon wiki perhaps? I'll try to get that done, but if someone can start something, that would be great. Still catching up from travels. > > Are their any guidelines for reviewing these talks and calibrating the rating > category (strongly reject <--> strongly accept)? and when are these due? I, > of > course, would like to see these talks at the conference, and know the > presenters, and think they would give great talks, so my inclination is to > mark > these as strongly accept. > Then do it. The trouble that we had last time was that practically everything averaged "accept", making it incredibly difficult to do the final scheduling. If you can recommend to us a UIMA schedule, with talks and ordering, that would be a nice additional touch. If you can further indicate what related content they should be paired with to make a track (tracks are 6 talks) that would make it even better. > There's also a proposed UIMA BoFs. I'd like to see this happen, and I'm > planning to be there, so should I just mark this strongly accept? or if there > is > some limit, what are the guidelines for scoring BoFs? > Same as talks, although BoFs are schedule separately from the regular sessions. Typically we have a signup board of some kind at the event, where people can write in BoFs. However, if we have BoFs in the CFP system, and can pre-populate that signup, that is a big advantage because it allows for publicity ahead of time. > Besides the scoring / comments, what other procedures / processes do we need > to > participate in, leading up to the conference? Watch this list for "help wanted" emails from me and others. As we get close to the event, they will no doubt get more frantic. :-) The biggest answer to this question is getting the word out, both in a targeted manner (to project user mailing lists) and in a wider manner (social media, your project website, and so on) so that we can have as many people show up as possible. While publicity is primarily the job of the LF, inward-facing publicity (ie, to project communities) is something that we can do better than they can. --Rich -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
