cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2018 10:28:25 GMT
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.biswal06@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 <
> rafaelweingartner@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.Tutkowski@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" <rwheeler@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 <
> wstevens@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.Tutkowski@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" <
> > >     >> rafaelweingartner@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 <
> > >     >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> > >     >>>>> Hi Mike,
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> congrats!
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> Best regards,
> > >     >>>>> Swen
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >     >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> > >     >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018 21:40
> > >     >>>>> An: dev@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: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > >     skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > >     phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Thanks and Regards*
> Manas Ranjan Biswal
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message