You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> on 2018/03/27 19:39:33 UTC
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
RE: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
I'm happy to chip in.
paul.angus@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
-----Original Message-----
From: Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
Sent: 27 March 2018 21:20
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
I can support this.
Cheers,
Will
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mi...@netapp.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Gabriel Beims Bräscher <ga...@gmail.com>.
I can help with this.
2018-03-27 17:32 GMT-03:00 Khosrow Moossavi <km...@cloudops.com>:
> I can help as well.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I can support this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Will
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <
> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Gabriel Beims Bräscher <ga...@gmail.com>.
I can help with this.
2018-03-27 17:32 GMT-03:00 Khosrow Moossavi <km...@cloudops.com>:
> I can help as well.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I can support this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Will
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <
> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Khosrow Moossavi <km...@cloudops.com>.
I can help as well.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> I can support this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
RE: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
I'm happy to chip in.
paul.angus@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
-----Original Message-----
From: Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
Sent: 27 March 2018 21:20
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
I can support this.
Cheers,
Will
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mi...@netapp.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Khosrow Moossavi <km...@cloudops.com>.
I can help as well.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> I can support this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
I can support this.
Cheers,
Will
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mi...@netapp.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
What is your doubt?
I am proposing the community that instead of creating a group to review, we
can create only a group to select/organize CloudStack presentations
according to the grades/ranking created by the whole Apache Community.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:15 AM, manas biswal <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Good Day
>
> Could you please elaborate bit more
> As earlier I was working with Apache CloudStack
>
> Currently I am working with OpenStack for NFV deployment, Telco
> acceleration etc.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingartner@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
> wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <rwheeler@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" <rwheeler@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" <
> > > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> congrats!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>> Swen
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Thanks and Regards*
> Manas Ranjan Biswal
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by manas biswal <ma...@gmail.com>.
Good Day
Could you please elaborate bit more
As earlier I was working with Apache CloudStack
Currently I am working with OpenStack for NFV deployment, Telco
acceleration etc.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingartner@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <rwheeler@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" <rwheeler@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" <
> > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> congrats!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Swen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
--
*Thanks and Regards*
Manas Ranjan Biswal
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi Ron,
We (mainly Giles and Will, from what I am aware) are still in the process of finalizing how many rooms we get and for how long, so – unfortunately – we can’t answer your questions at least at this time.
We’re making progress on that front, though.
Thanks,
Mike
On 4/5/18, 10:28 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
By the time you go through one and write up a commentary, you have used
quite a bit of your discretionary time.
How many days are in the review period?
How many reviewers have volunteered?
I would hope that key organizers of the conference are only reviewing
finalists where the author has already done a revision to address the
reviewers comments and the reviewers have given it a passing grade.
How many presentations are going to be given?
Are there any "reserved" slots for presentations that will be given on
behalf of the PMC as official project reports such as a roadmap or
project overview?
Ron
On 05/04/2018 9:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I
> have been a bit slammed at the moment.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike,
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think
> it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each
> one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years
> ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were
> submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount
> of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it
> is adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed
> to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to
> do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> 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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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 <
> >> > wstevens@cloudops.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > > >> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com
> <ma...@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 <http://swen.io> <
> >> > > >> me@swen.io <ma...@swen.io>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> congrats!
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>>>> Swen
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike
> [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>]
> >> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>;
> >> > > >> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> >> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi Ron,
We (mainly Giles and Will, from what I am aware) are still in the process of finalizing how many rooms we get and for how long, so – unfortunately – we can’t answer your questions at least at this time.
We’re making progress on that front, though.
Thanks,
Mike
On 4/5/18, 10:28 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
By the time you go through one and write up a commentary, you have used
quite a bit of your discretionary time.
How many days are in the review period?
How many reviewers have volunteered?
I would hope that key organizers of the conference are only reviewing
finalists where the author has already done a revision to address the
reviewers comments and the reviewers have given it a passing grade.
How many presentations are going to be given?
Are there any "reserved" slots for presentations that will be given on
behalf of the PMC as official project reports such as a roadmap or
project overview?
Ron
On 05/04/2018 9:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I
> have been a bit slammed at the moment.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike,
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think
> it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each
> one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years
> ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were
> submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount
> of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it
> is adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed
> to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to
> do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> 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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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 <
> >> > wstevens@cloudops.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > > >> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com
> <ma...@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 <http://swen.io> <
> >> > > >> me@swen.io <ma...@swen.io>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> congrats!
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>>>> Swen
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike
> [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>]
> >> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>;
> >> > > >> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> >> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
By the time you go through one and write up a commentary, you have used
quite a bit of your discretionary time.
How many days are in the review period?
How many reviewers have volunteered?
I would hope that key organizers of the conference are only reviewing
finalists where the author has already done a revision to address the
reviewers comments and the reviewers have given it a passing grade.
How many presentations are going to be given?
Are there any "reserved" slots for presentations that will be given on
behalf of the PMC as official project reports such as a roadmap or
project overview?
Ron
On 05/04/2018 9:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I
> have been a bit slammed at the moment.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike,
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think
> it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each
> one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years
> ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were
> submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount
> of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it
> is adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed
> to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to
> do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> 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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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 <
> >> > wstevens@cloudops.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > > >> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com
> <ma...@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 <http://swen.io> <
> >> > > >> me@swen.io <ma...@swen.io>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> congrats!
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>>>> Swen
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike
> [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>]
> >> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>;
> >> > > >> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> >> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
By the time you go through one and write up a commentary, you have used
quite a bit of your discretionary time.
How many days are in the review period?
How many reviewers have volunteered?
I would hope that key organizers of the conference are only reviewing
finalists where the author has already done a revision to address the
reviewers comments and the reviewers have given it a passing grade.
How many presentations are going to be given?
Are there any "reserved" slots for presentations that will be given on
behalf of the PMC as official project reports such as a roadmap or
project overview?
Ron
On 05/04/2018 9:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I
> have been a bit slammed at the moment.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike,
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think
> it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each
> one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years
> ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were
> submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount
> of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it
> is adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed
> to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to
> do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> 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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@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"
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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 <
> >> > wstevens@cloudops.com <ma...@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.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@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" <
> >> > > >> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com
> <ma...@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 <http://swen.io> <
> >> > > >> me@swen.io <ma...@swen.io>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> congrats!
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>>>> Swen
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike
> [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>]
> >> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>;
> >> > > >> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> <ma...@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> >> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I have
been a bit slammed at the moment.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mi...@netapp.com>
wrote:
> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think it
> would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each one? One time
> that I was on one of these panels a couple years ago, we each reviewed the
> roughly dozen presentations that were submitted. Of course, people may not
> be able to spend that amount of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it is
> adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed to be
> sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to do a proper
> review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> 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" <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
> Mike.Tutkowski@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" <
> rafaelweingartner@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> rwheeler@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 <
> >> > wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@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" <
> >> > rwheeler@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" <
> >> > > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> >> > > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> congrats!
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>>>> Swen
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:
> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> >> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> >> > > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> >> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount of time on this.
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>
> We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it is adequately staffed.
>
> The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> 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" <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly it.
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@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" <ra...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
>> > wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
>> > rwheeler@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" <
>> > rwheeler@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" <
>> > > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
>> > > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
>> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> congrats!
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Best regards,
>> > > >>>>> Swen
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>> > > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rafael Weingärtner
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it is
adequately staffed.
The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed to be
sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to do a proper
review and that the reviews get done.
Ron
On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> 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" <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is exactly it.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@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" <ra...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
> > wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> > rwheeler@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" <
> > rwheeler@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" <
> > > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> congrats!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>> Swen
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is exactly it.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@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" <ra...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
> wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> congrats!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Swen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is exactly it.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@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" <ra...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
> wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> congrats!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Swen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
That is exactly it.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@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" <ra...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
> wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> congrats!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Swen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
That is exactly it.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@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" <ra...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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 <
> wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> rwheeler@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" <
> > >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> congrats!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Swen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> > >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <ra...@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 <Mi...@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" <rw...@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 <ws...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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" <rwheeler@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" <
> >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> congrats!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Swen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <ra...@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 <Mi...@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" <rw...@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 <ws...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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" <rwheeler@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" <
> >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> congrats!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Swen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <Mi...@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" <rw...@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 <ws...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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" <rwheeler@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" <
> >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> congrats!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Swen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <Mi...@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" <rw...@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 <ws...@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.Tutkowski@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" <rw...@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" <rwheeler@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" <
> >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> congrats!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Swen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> >> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <rw...@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 <ws...@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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
>> rafaelweingartner@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 <
>> me@swen.io> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats!
>>>>>
>>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Swen
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <rw...@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 <ws...@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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
>> rafaelweingartner@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 <
>> me@swen.io> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats!
>>>>>
>>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Swen
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
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 <ws...@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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
>> rafaelweingartner@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 <
>> me@swen.io> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats!
>>>>>
>>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Swen
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
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 <ws...@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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
>> rafaelweingartner@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 <
>> me@swen.io> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats!
>>>>>
>>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Swen
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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 <ws...@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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> me@swen.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> congrats!
>>>>
>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Swen
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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 <ws...@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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> me@swen.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> congrats!
>>>>
>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Swen
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
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" <Mi...@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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <
rafaelweingartner@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 <
me@swen.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > congrats!
> > >
> > > I can help sort through presentations.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Swen
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > congrats!
> > >
> > > I can help sort through presentations.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Swen
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <rw...@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" <rw...@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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > congrats!
> > >
> > > I can help sort through presentations.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Swen
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
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" <rw...@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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > congrats!
> > >
> > > I can help sort through presentations.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Swen
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
Ya Mike, this is the way we have done it in the past and it works well.
Anyone interested can join us, and we will setup a call to review the talks
on a specific date. Then go from there.
Do we know what the second day will be yet? I have to try to figure out a
venue (hackathon?) for a third day, but I need a date.
Will
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 7:16 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mi...@netapp.com>
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" <rw...@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" <
> rafaelweingartner@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 <me...@swen.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > congrats!
> > >
> > > I can help sort through presentations.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Swen
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
>
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
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" <rw...@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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > congrats!
> > >
> > > I can help sort through presentations.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Swen
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <rw...@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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > congrats!
> >
> > I can help sort through presentations.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Swen
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <rw...@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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > congrats!
> >
> > I can help sort through presentations.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Swen
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > congrats!
> >
> > I can help sort through presentations.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Swen
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > congrats!
> >
> > I can help sort through presentations.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Swen
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> congrats!
>
> I can help sort through presentations.
>
> Best regards,
> Swen
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
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" <ra...@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 <me...@swen.io> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> congrats!
>
> I can help sort through presentations.
>
> Best regards,
> Swen
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
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...@swen.io> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> congrats!
>
> I can help sort through presentations.
>
> Best regards,
> Swen
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
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...@swen.io> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> congrats!
>
> I can help sort through presentations.
>
> Best regards,
> Swen
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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
AW: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Swen - swen.io" <me...@swen.io>.
Hi Mike,
congrats!
I can help sort through presentations.
Best regards,
Swen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; users@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
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi everyone,
This note is a follow-up to this discussion thread.
Around the middle of April, the CloudStack PMC received an e-mail indicating (to our surprise) that we needed to provide the people organizing Montreal’s upcoming ApacheCon (which includes the CloudStack Collab Conf) with a schedule by Thursday, April 19th.
As this was sooner than we had expected, we were not able to get the group of people who had volunteered to look at the CFP together for a call.
Giles, Will Stevens, and I ended up examining the 29 submissions. We determined that four people had submitted more than one proposal (which is perfectly fine, of course). Being that we needed to respond to the organizers quickly, we decided if we limited each person who submitted one or more abstracts to only one that we would then be able to accept a presentation from each person.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Mike
On 3/27/18, 1:39 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
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
Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi everyone,
This note is a follow-up to this discussion thread.
Around the middle of April, the CloudStack PMC received an e-mail indicating (to our surprise) that we needed to provide the people organizing Montreal’s upcoming ApacheCon (which includes the CloudStack Collab Conf) with a schedule by Thursday, April 19th.
As this was sooner than we had expected, we were not able to get the group of people who had volunteered to look at the CFP together for a call.
Giles, Will Stevens, and I ended up examining the 29 submissions. We determined that four people had submitted more than one proposal (which is perfectly fine, of course). Being that we needed to respond to the organizers quickly, we decided if we limited each person who submitted one or more abstracts to only one that we would then be able to accept a presentation from each person.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Mike
On 3/27/18, 1:39 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
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