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