Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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  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" 
> 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"  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" 
> 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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Will Stevens]

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" 
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"  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" 
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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  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"  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 

4.11.0.0 - Error to Register ISO in All Zones

[Lotic Lists]

Problem to register ISO in all zones

 

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10349

 

Regards

Marcelo

 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Will Stevens]

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, 
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"  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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Ron Wheeler]

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"  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
 >
   

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  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"  
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  wrote:
>  
>  > Hi Mike,
>  >
>  > congrats!
>  >
>  > I can help sort through presentations.
>  >
>  > Best regards,
>  > Swen
>  >
>  > 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Ron Wheeler]

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"  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  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