Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  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

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  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, 
> > 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
>  > 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"
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >>  On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> >
> >> 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"
> >
> >> > 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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Ron Wheeler]

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, 
> 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
> 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"
>
wrote:
>>
>>     That is exactly it.
>>          On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
>
>>     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"
>
>>     > 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.
>>     >     >
>>    

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Will Stevens]

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, 
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 
> 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" 
> 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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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  
> 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"  wrote:
>> 
>> That is exactly it.
>>  On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 
>> 
>> 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" 
>> > 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" 
>> 
>> > 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
>> >

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Ron Wheeler]

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"  wrote:

 That is exactly it.
 
 On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 

 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" 
 > 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" 
 > 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
 > >  

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  wrote:

That is exactly it.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 
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" 
> 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" 
> 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
  

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Rafael Weingärtner]

That is exactly it.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 
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" 
> 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" 
> 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
> > 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  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 
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"  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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Rafael Weingärtner]

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 
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"  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 
> 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
> >> 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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"  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  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 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Ron Wheeler]

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  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 

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 

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

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

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

RE: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Paul Angus]

I'm happy to chip in.

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Will Stevens <wstev...@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, <mike.tutkow...@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

[Rafael Weingärtner]

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

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Gabriel Beims Bräscher]

I can help with this.

2018-03-27 17:32 GMT-03:00 Khosrow Moossavi :

> I can help as well.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Will Stevens 
> wrote:
>
> > I can support this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Will
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <
> mike.tutkow...@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

[Khosrow Moossavi]

I can help as well.




On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Will Stevens  wrote:

> I can support this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike,  >
> 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

[Will Stevens]

I can support this.

Cheers,

Will

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:39 PM Tutkowski, Mike, 
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
>