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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly it.
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
<mike.tutkow...@netapp.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <http://swen.io> <
>> > > >> m...@swen.io <mailto: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 <mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>]
>> > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
>> > > >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>;
>> > > >> us...@cloudstack.apache.org
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
