On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 09:27 -0600, John Griffith wrote: > You are exactly correct Thierry, being a track chair a few times in > the process has been something like: > * PIck a cut off based on votes > * Review remaining submissions as a panel
I followed a different process when I've been track-chair, one that doesn't look much at the results of public voting: - Establish a "Theme" with fellow co-chair, a sort of objective for the tracks we want to have presented to the public. - Ignore the popularFor example, I look at the popularity of videos in the tracks I chaired as feedbackFor example, I look at the popularity of videos in the tracks I chaired as feedbackity contest - Evaluate every single proposal submitted against the objective defined above - Rank the proposals - Look at the results of the popularity contest to unblock difficult decisions and disagreements. All track chairs are instructed to look at the results of the voting sessions but not to consider those more than another tool to help them make hard decisions. For example, I also looked at the popularity of recorded videos to gauge the interests in a topic or the skills of a speaker. The public voting gets people to talk about the summit, gives them an excuse to promote their creations and ultimately is fun. It's not meant to be serious otherwise it would be work :) /stef _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
