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.tutkow...@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 <rwhee...@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" <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> That is exactly it. > >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike < > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Rafael, > >> > > >> > I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the final > say on how > >> > we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of ApacheCon in > >> > Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage Apache’s > normal > >> > review process to gather all the feedback from the larger Apache > Community. > >> > > >> > As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via that > mechanism > >> > and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could advertise on > our users@ > >> > and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a call > and make > >> > final decisions on the CFP. > >> > > >> > Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael? > >> > > >> > Talk to you soon, > >> > Mike > >> > > >> > On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner" < > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already > signed up to > >> > review. > >> > > >> > Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache > main > >> > review > >> > system, and then we use that to decide which presentations > will get in > >> > CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we > also remove > >> > bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from > Apache > >> > community > >> > (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair > and > >> > technical > >> > (meaning, without passion and or favoritism). > >> > > >> > Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs > to gather > >> > the > >> > results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the > ones to our > >> > tracks. > >> > > >> > What do you (Mike) and others think? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike < > >> > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Ron, > >> > > > >> > > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have > currently > >> > signed > >> > > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, > I’m only > >> > aware of > >> > > those who have responded to this e-mail chain. > >> > > > >> > > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. > We’re still > >> > quite > >> > > early in the process. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for your feedback, > >> > > Mike > >> > > > >> > > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" < > rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > How many people have signed up to be reviewers? > >> > > > >> > > I don't think that scheduling is part of the review > process and > >> > that > >> > > can > >> > > be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on > behalf of > >> > the PMC. > >> > > > >> > > To me review is looking at content for > >> > > - relevance > >> > > - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to > content, > >> > English, > >> > > graphics, etc.) > >> > > This should result in a consensus score > >> > > - Perfect - ready for prime time > >> > > - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers > >> > > - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer > could > >> > volunteer > >> > > to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen > >> > > - Not recommended for topic or content reasons > >> > > > >> > > The reviewers could also make non-binding > recommendations about > >> > the > >> > > balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack), > >> > > Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, > etc. > >> > based on > >> > > what they have seen. > >> > > > >> > > This should be used by the organizers to make the > choices and > >> > organize > >> > > the program. > >> > > The organizers have the final say on the choice of > presentations > >> > and > >> > > schedule > >> > > > >> > > Reviewers are there to help the process not control it. > >> > > > >> > > I would be worried that you do not have enough > reviewers rather > >> > than > >> > > too > >> > > many. > >> > > Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers. > >> > > > >> > > When planning meetings, I would recommend that you > clearly > >> > separate the > >> > > roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings > about > >> > review. Get > >> > > the list of presentation to present to the reviewers > and decide > >> > if > >> > > there > >> > > are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers. > >> > > I would recommend that you keep the organizing group > small. > >> > Membership > >> > > should be set by the PMC and should be people that are > committed > >> > to the > >> > > ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can > request > >> > help for > >> > > specific tasks from others in the community who are not > on the > >> > > committee. > >> > > > >> > > I would also recommend that organizers do not do > reviews. They > >> > should > >> > > read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be > a > >> > suggestion of > >> > > favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also > ensures that > >> > the > >> > > organizers are not getting heat from rejected > presenters - "it > >> > is the > >> > > reviewers fault you did not get selected". > >> > > > >> > > My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so > that no one > >> > is > >> > > essential and each reviewer has a limited number of > >> > presentations to > >> > > review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple > people. > >> > Also > >> > > bear > >> > > in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to > review > >> > each > >> > > presentation. > >> > > Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary > comments given > >> > to the > >> > > presenter. Reviewers of a presentation should be able > to discuss > >> > the > >> > > presentation during the review to make sure that > reviewers do > >> > not feel > >> > > isolated or get lost when they hit content that they > don't > >> > understand > >> > > fully. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Ron > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 01/04/2018 12:20 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: > >> > > > Thanks for the feedback, Will! > >> > > > > >> > > > I agree with the approach you outlined. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for being so involved in the process! Let’s > chat with > >> > Giles > >> > > once he’s back to see if we can get your questions answered. > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Mar 31, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Will Stevens < > >> > wstev...@cloudops.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> In the past the committee was chosen as a relatively > small > >> > group in > >> > > order > >> > > >> to make it easier to manage feedback. In order to > make it > >> > fair to > >> > > everyone > >> > > >> in the community, I would suggest that instead of > doing it > >> > with a > >> > > small > >> > > >> group, we do it out in the open on a scheduled call. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> We will have to get a list of the talks that are > CloudStack > >> > > specific from > >> > > >> ApacheCon, but that should be possible. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Once we have the talks selected, then a smaller > number of us > >> > can > >> > > work on > >> > > >> setting up the actual ordering and the details. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I have been quite involved so far. Giles and I have > been > >> > > organizing the > >> > > >> sponsors, website and dealing with ApacheCon so far. > >> > Obviously, > >> > > Mike is > >> > > >> also working on this as well. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I think we are headed in the right direction on this. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Cheers, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Will > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Mar 31, 2018 11:49 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" < > >> > > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Ron, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I am definitely open to working this however makes > the most > >> > sense. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> It looks like Will’s e-mail indicates that the > process I > >> > suggested > >> > > has been > >> > > >> followed in the past (which is how I recall, as > well). > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Let’s make sure I understood Will correctly. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Will – Are you, in fact, indicating that what I was > >> > suggesting is > >> > > how we > >> > > >> have reviewed the CFP in the past? If so, are you > able to > >> > address > >> > > Ron’s > >> > > >> concerns? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Also, Will – I am not sure about a hackathon. Let’s > chat with > >> > Giles > >> > > once > >> > > >> he’s back from vacation since he’s been the most > involved with > >> > > organizing > >> > > >> the CloudStack track within ApacheCon. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks! > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Mike > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On 3/31/18, 9:00 PM, "Ron Wheeler" < > >> > rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I am not sure about your concern in that case. > >> > > >> I am not sure why people not interested in > Cloudstack > >> > would > >> > > volunteer as > >> > > >> reviewers and want to pick bad presentations. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I would be more worried that there are not > enough good > >> > > presentations > >> > > >> proposed rather than some meritorious > presentation will > >> > get > >> > > rejected due > >> > > >> to "outsiders" voting it down in favour of less > useful > >> > > presentations. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> It may be tricky to get balance if that means > taking "bad" > >> > > proposals > >> > > >> that can not be fixed that cover topics that are > in areas > >> > that > >> > > are not > >> > > >> otherwise covered at the expense of great > presentations > >> > that > >> > > are in > >> > > >> areas with many choices. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> We should wait to see how many presentations > have to be > >> > > rejected and the > >> > > >> number of reviewers before getting too exercised > over the > >> > > loyalty of > >> > > >> reviewers. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Getting more reviewers is likely the most > effective way > >> > to see > >> > > that a > >> > > >> wider range of topics is covered. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Ron > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> On 31/03/2018 7:15 PM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: > >> > > >>> Hi Ron, > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> From what I understand, the CloudStack proposals > will be > >> > mixed in > >> > > >> with all of the ApacheCon proposals. > >> > > >>> In the past when I’ve participated in these > CloudStack > >> > panels to > >> > > >> review proposals, we had to compare each proposal > against the > >> > > others to > >> > > >> arrive at a balance of topics (i.e. not all > networking > >> > focused, not > >> > > all > >> > > >> XenServer focused, etc.) and to suggest improvements > for > >> > proposals > >> > > that we > >> > > >> did not accept for other reasons. > >> > > >>> From what I understand (but Giles can comment > further on > >> > this), we > >> > > >> have a track at ApacheCon and will need to fill it > with X > >> > number of > >> > > >> presentations. To do this, it seems like a > CloudStack-focused > >> > panel > >> > > would > >> > > >> be a good approach, but I am definitely open to > another > >> > approach. > >> > > We don’t > >> > > >> want to exclude anyone (in or out of the CloudStack > >> > Community) who > >> > > might > >> > > >> like to provide input. Anyone who is interested > would, of > >> > course, > >> > > be free > >> > > >> to join us in combing through the proposals. > >> > > >>> We don’t need to get started on this right away. > The CFP just > >> > > closed > >> > > >> yesterday. Let’s wait for feedback from Giles (who is > >> > currently on > >> > > >> vacation) and go from there. > >> > > >>> Thanks! > >> > > >>> Mike > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On 3/31/18, 6:59 AM, "Ron Wheeler" < > >> > rwhee...@artifact-software.com > >> > > > > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >>> Is this a real concern? > >> > > >>> Why would a large number of Apache > contributors who are > >> > not > >> > > >> interested > >> > > >>> in Cloudstack (enough to outvote those "part > of the > >> > Cloudstack > >> > > >>> community") get involved as reviewers > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Reviewing involves some commitment of time so > I am hard > >> > > pressed > >> > > >> to guess > >> > > >>> why some Apache contributor would volunteer to > do the > >> > work in > >> > > >> order to > >> > > >>> veto a presentation that they have not yet > seen or have > >> > no > >> > > >> interest in > >> > > >>> seeing. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Are we guaranteed a fixed number of hours of > >> > presentations or > >> > > is > >> > > >> the > >> > > >>> review process part of the allocation of > overall time? > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On what basis can some group veto a > presentation? > >> > > >>> That would seem to be a very strong action and > I would > >> > hope > >> > > that > >> > > >> it > >> > > >>> requires a strong reason. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> OTOH if a large??? number of Apache > contributors > >> > (regardless > >> > > of > >> > > >> their > >> > > >>> affiliation) say that a presentation has > serious issues > >> > or > >> > > very > >> > > >> limited > >> > > >>> interest, that would seem to be a red flag > that the > >> > > presentation > >> > > >>> requires improvement or needs to be dropped in > favour of > >> > > another > >> > > >>> Cloudstack presentation, if it can not be > fixed. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> We should also be aware that this is an > opportunity to > >> > > "market" > >> > > >>> Cloudstack to the broader Apache community. > >> > > >>> Outside reviewers might have valuable input > into how > >> > > >> presentations can > >> > > >>> attract new adopters or be clearer to the > broader DevOps > >> > > >> community. > >> > > >>> We also need to remember that we do have an > active > >> > community > >> > > and > >> > > >> other > >> > > >>> opportunities during the year to present > presentations > >> > that do > >> > > >> not get > >> > > >>> selected for this conference. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> If their is a real fear that a lot of > "outsiders" are > >> > going to > >> > > >> disrupt > >> > > >>> the review process, a more reasonable response > would > >> > seem to > >> > > be > >> > > >> to get > >> > > >>> more reviewers from the community. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> I have volunteered already. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Ron > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>>> On 30/03/2018 11:11 PM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: > >> > > >>>> Hi Rafael, > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> It’s a little bit tricky in our particular > situation. Allow > >> > me > >> > > >> to explain: > >> > > >>>> As you are likely aware, the CloudStack > Collaboration > >> > > >> Conference will be held as a track in the larger > ApacheCon > >> > > conference in > >> > > >> Montreal this coming September. > >> > > >>>> It is true, as you say, that anyone who wishes to > do so can > >> > > >> contribute to reviewing the CFP for ApacheCon. > >> > > >>>> What is a bit of a concern, however, is that we > might get > >> > > >> certain CloudStack CFP proposals vetoed by people > who are > >> > not, per > >> > > se, a > >> > > >> part of our community. > >> > > >>>> That being the case, I have contacted the > organizers for > >> > > >> ApacheCon to see if there is some way we can section > off the > >> > > CloudStack CFP > >> > > >> from the larger ApacheCon CFP for review purposes. > >> > > >>>> Assuming we can do this, the panel that I am > proposing here > >> > > >> would handle this review task. > >> > > >>>> I hope that helps clarify the situation. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Thanks! > >> > > >>>> Mike > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> On 3/30/18, 8:38 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner" < > >> > > >> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>> Are we going to have a separated review > process? > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> I thought anybody could go here [1] and apply > for a > >> > > >> reviewer position and > >> > > >>>> start reviewing. Well, that is what I did. I > have > >> > already > >> > > >> reviewed some > >> > > >>>> CloudStack proposals (of course I did not > review > >> > mines). > >> > > >> After asking to > >> > > >>>> review presentations, Rich has giving me > access to the > >> > > >> system. I thought > >> > > >>>> everybody interest in helping was going to do > the same. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> [1] > >> > > >> https://cfp.apachecon.com/conference.html?apachecon- > >> > > north-america-2018 > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Swen - > swen.io < > >> > > >> m...@swen.io> wrote: > >> > > >>>>> Hi Mike, > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> congrats! > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> I can help sort through presentations. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Best regards, > >> > > >>>>> Swen > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto: > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com] > >> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40 > >> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; > >> > > >> us...@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > > >>>>> Betreff: Committee to Sort through CCC > Presentation > >> > > >> Submissions > >> > > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> As you may be aware, this coming September in > Montreal, > >> > > >> the CloudStack > >> > > >>>>> Community will be hosting the CloudStack > Collaboration > >> > > >> Conference: > >> > > >>>>> http://ca.cloudstackcollab.org/ > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Even though the event is six months away, we are > on a > >> > > >> tight schedule with > >> > > >>>>> regards to the Call For Participation (CFP): > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> https://www.apachecon.com/acna18/schedule.html > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> If you are interested in submitting a talk, > please do > >> > > >> so before March 30th. > >> > > >>>>> That being said, as usual, we will have need of a > small > >> > > >> committee to sort > >> > > >>>>> through these presentation submissions. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> If you are interested in helping out in this > process, > >> > > >> please reply to this > >> > > >>>>> message. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks! > >> > > >>>>> Mike > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> -- > >> > > >>>> Rafael Weingärtner > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Ron Wheeler > >> > > President > >> > > Artifact Software Inc > >> > > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > >> > > skype: ronaldmwheeler > >> > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Rafael Weingärtner > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > >> Rafael Weingärtner > >> > > > > -- > > Ron Wheeler > > President > > Artifact Software Inc > > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > > skype: ronaldmwheeler > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > >
