From users-return-30283-apmail-cloudstack-users-archive=cloudstack.apache.org@cloudstack.apache.org Thu Apr 5 10:28:37 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B342F18DCB for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16546 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2018 10:28:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-users-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 16492 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2018 10:28:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 16476 invoked by uid 99); 5 Apr 2018 10:28:34 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 10:28:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 970571A0804 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:28:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.879 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4pRuyc-4bv59 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot0-f182.google.com (mail-ot0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id EFFCB5F167 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:28:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f182.google.com with SMTP id n40-v6so26613416otd.3 for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 03:28:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pdxhTHNZfQ6tkovrVQjlrCums46I9QUeI2Yl8DSQFnQ=; b=bJByhDYENvUXKteN+7f2DhISn/VUCUA84/5hjYuuU9I16ImExSmqWULHFpd/L9NBe+ ukHyj0ZGcnXNLSVYi1dNNIm8gytgeRpsWhYgnZyuJwlRBKwJLyIMcVPgELO8Zt3eCRaZ 5Rvy5yWy3AVAf0zSvmLEI2Pp2hNYj9huJdtNoiuK+o3tJYua4/r3aeN4qaNMPbfsF0e6 oZmM/bvoSsoA+ifH8U5wZfd6iDNZXl1ti2PsLZhx7Vi4Cn5bJ1B9qNa21h3RWKrD7AVw LGbATeApC18CBRZjlMBqiLf7E8gTX4NseGwkcHc6o76u9L8iroWtukDMkGrKAm+RY4PE EsMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=pdxhTHNZfQ6tkovrVQjlrCums46I9QUeI2Yl8DSQFnQ=; b=N9UMamF4ZXXYyMUZhGk4zRrmsN0SYIlys8wttMPJZN8mkNNkKGVEifafS1UikIh9oZ 5uVYi8EO0cwFzcf5SmuU1Si5HNj26QZlEbhz/II4y0dA4JhAFeG/MQZqNSWNvuJd9ILp wo1TKs+W4cotA3TTa2eutFxllDh3MX3E/sYoMAh2nHqBWzfxJZhPb0RC0wTzGoRzE5mA OQUh0ZTkAu1LksdJqoq+AZHIBXTx4Cr6b/V7c/syiKqNxfsQyai7hyiIPJZkGqYbiOqD OpDo/gmEXPsWM3HG6ivYpPBaPI7BgQC7kmELP8SrrQYwMmrLlQNuOS19SBCrOVALgsS1 vGWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FAVGDR26fm9bU9Iaqb6WbJ28LzECBcl8QlIF7/hz74Sh1WxvaU 9zr3/83Bn2L87FV2H23eJ1STGEgLkNADB2hZjbiupiTW X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx496s/mX4vxb/B5pWEoAYE8BHQDxxV30SKzXjP9hf9pbKM0ilfSnv8eUzJ2+O4fv1YQaOUJuZP+EuCJ6tq3DELg= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4312:: with SMTP id s18-v6mr13622778ote.187.1522924106440; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 03:28:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:2a35:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 03:28:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <000001d3c663$2cb4ba60$861e2f20$@swen.io> <155f4132-7dc9-74a8-2278-03c3e479f80d@artifact-software.com> <483E74CA-533C-4C96-A625-EAFE2DB57E91@netapp.com> <5C8F9B24-369E-4069-87A7-D439F229A556@netapp.com> <06D85130-728E-4AD0-85B6-89163534C26B@netapp.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafael_Weing=C3=A4rtner?= Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 07:28:25 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions To: users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006263f7056917663d" --0000000000006263f7056917663d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 Weing=C3=A4rtner < > rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think everybody that =E2=80=9Craised their hands here=E2=80=9D alread= y signed up to > > review. > > > > Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main revie= w > > 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=E2=80=A6). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apac= he > 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=E2=80=99t actually have insight into how many people have curre= ntly > signed > > > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I=E2=80=99m = 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=E2=80=99re= 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 th= e > > 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 t= he > > > 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 separa= te > > the > > > roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about review. > Get > > > the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide i= f > > > 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 he= lp > > 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 i= s > > > essential and each reviewer has a limited number of presentations > to > > > review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple people. Al= so > > > bear > > > in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to review ea= ch > > > presentation. > > > Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary comments given t= o > > 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=E2=80=99s chat= with > Giles > > > once he=E2=80=99s 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 gro= up > > in > > > order > > > >> to make it easier to manage feedback. In order to make it fai= r > to > > > everyone > > > >> in the community, I would suggest that instead of doing it wit= h > 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 c= an > > > 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. Obviousl= y, > > > 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=E2=80=99s e-mail indicates that the process= I > suggested > > > has been > > > >> followed in the past (which is how I recall, as well). > > > >> > > > >> Let=E2=80=99s make sure I understood Will correctly. > > > >> > > > >> Will =E2=80=93 Are you, in fact, indicating that what I was su= ggesting > is > > > how we > > > >> have reviewed the CFP in the past? If so, are you able to > address > > > Ron=E2=80=99s > > > >> concerns? > > > >> > > > >> Also, Will =E2=80=93 I am not sure about a hackathon. Let=E2= =80=99s chat with > > Giles > > > once > > > >> he=E2=80=99s back from vacation since he=E2=80=99s been the mo= st involved with > > > organizing > > > >> the CloudStack track within ApacheCon. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks! > > > >> > > > >> Mike > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 3/31/18, 9:00 PM, "Ron Wheeler" > com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I am not sure about your concern in that case. > > > >> I am not sure why people not interested in Cloudstack woul= d > > > 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 ge= t > > > 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 th= at > > > 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 mix= ed > > in > > > >> with all of the ApacheCon proposals. > > > >>> In the past when I=E2=80=99ve participated in these CloudStac= k 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 numb= er > > 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=E2=80=99t > > > >> 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=E2=80=99t need to get started on this right away. The = CFP just > > > closed > > > >> yesterday. Let=E2=80=99s 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" > 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 wo= rk > > 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 presentatio= ns > > 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 see= m > 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=E2=80=99s 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 Weing=C3=A4rtner" < > > > >> 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 alrea= dy > > > >> 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht----- > > > >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com] > > > >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. M=C3=A4rz 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 Weing=C3=A4rtner > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > > Ron Wheeler > > > President > > > Artifact Software Inc > > > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com > > > skype: ronaldmwheeler > > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Rafael Weing=C3=A4rtner > > > > > > -- > *Thanks and Regards* > Manas Ranjan Biswal > --=20 Rafael Weing=C3=A4rtner --0000000000006263f7056917663d--