www-apachecon-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Some feedback on the new review mechanism
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:39:50 GMT
On 09/29/2016 10:26 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> We had 32,000 scores submitted (between 50 and 70 per talk)
> 
> Which seems better than the older systems we have tried.
> 
>> As for the 'daily batch' you had to go through, I'll admit that 720 or
>> whatever the number was, is a tad much. We can definitely lower that
>> number to make it more digestible.
> 
> +1 to that. 50 - 100 matches at most please, otherwise it tends to blur a bit after a
while.
> 
> When reviewing I did run into a few minor issues:
> - Some talks gave away the speakers name, but most were anonymous. Sometime the name
is important / most of the time it is not. Perhaps best to edit the occasional name out for
the review process? But do you really want to miss out on say Jim's Apache Way talk because
he only put in a one line description? 

Part of this was time constraints this time, part was using one system
for CFP and one for review, neither of which should be a factor next time.

We will be sure to make it clear to speakers, that the abstract should
preferably be anonymous as much as possible. AND we'll make sure to
state that you must provide a strong abstract if your talk is to be
accepted.

> - Hard to compare totally unlike talks how do you rate a talk in diversity vs a talk
on the internals of the HTTP server?

I agree, and that's what the "I don't know" score was for. Perhaps we
should add a 'skip this review' button for when it's really difficult to
figure it out.

> - Similar subject talks didn't come up as often as I like to be compared with each other.
there was 3 or 4 Apache ways talks but I don;t think I managed to directly compare them.

We can work on how random the review process is, so it becomes a bit
more evenly distributed, but this would need some discussion, as we
don't wanna create unintended mathematical bias somewhere.

> - I would of really like to see the extra info the speaker submitted (not so much the
name and bio) but why this talk in important to Apache and why people would attend. Seems
useful to know that.

Yeah, again, two systems trying to talk to each other doesn't always
work :(. Next time it will be one system for everything, which should
make things smoother.

With regards,
Daniel.

> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 


Mime
View raw message