On 10/4/2018 2:06 PM, Liz Rice wrote:
Hi all from a current co-chair :-) Some great
constructive ideas here, this is turning into a good discussion.
On the
double-blinding, I was involved in discussions about
this after Austin and again after Copenhagen. Both times
we came to the conclusion that double-blind wouldn't
work, mostly for the reasons Alena & Justin
described. I don't recall hearing the two-phase
suggestion before though, and I think this is really
worth exploring further.
We'd have to reduce the number of submissions to make that
in any way manageable.
Why? You're essentially doing this now when you narrow things down
anyway.
The idea of beefing up the CFP requirements could help (but
is it possible we will put off some really knowledgable folks
from contributing if we make it more onerous?)
I don't think it's practical to require a whole deck, but a bit more
detail is not an imposition, IMHO.
I think we need a bigger pool of review committee
participants (who actually do it diligently) and perhaps
should solicit more widely for volunteers for that.
How many people did we have this time? Did they do the whole
conference or individual tracks?
My experience has been with the OpenStack Summit, where each track
had its own committee, so reviewers had only a few dozen to a couple
hundred to review, not thousands. That worked very well.
I'm inclined to say we shouldn't allow more than two
submissions from any individual, but I don't think it's fair
to impose submission limits per company - partly because it
would be hard for them to manage, but more importantly this
would likely end up with fewer new voices getting a chance, as
the companies will no doubt push for their star performers to
be on stage.
+1
Perhaps we should document more of the
co-chair decisions as we go along? Definitely worth
considering, though it adds up to more work for the
co-chairs (not that it will affect me as my term comes to
an end after Seattle).
Even a multiple choice would be good, and wouldn't take much effort.
---- Nick
