11:36 a.m.
Thanks to the Fedora Community for submitting 125 awesome talks,
hackfests, sprints and workshops for Flock, our new contributor conference!
We've taken those submissions and put them in the Fedora Elections web
application, and now, it is time for you to give us your feedback. These
proposals have been submitted by the Fedora community and we want the
Fedora community to tell us what _you_ want to see! Even if you cannot
attend Flock in person, these sessions will be streamed and recorded, so
your vote is appreciated!
If you have a Fedora Account (they are free to create), and have agreed
to the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA), you can vote for the
125 submissions here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/vote/flock-2013
Need a Fedora Account? Go to:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts
Want to know more about Flock? Go to:
http://flocktofedora.org
The way that the voting works is this:
For each submission, you can give it any score between 0 ("do not want")
and 125 ("WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT!!!!"). Next to every submission title
is a link to the abstract for the submission, which usually (though not
always) contains a longer explanation. These submissions are mostly
anonymized (some people put their names or enough details in the
abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed speakers were). This is
intentional, as we are trying to eliminate an area of potential bias. We
want the ideas behind these submissions to be the area of focus, and not
be overly biased by the speaker.
Voting is now open, and will remain open until 2013-06-10 04:00:00 UTC
(12:00 AM Eastern Time).
Please note: While the voting results will weigh heavily upon the final
Flock schedule, they will not be used as the sole determination for
accepted talks.
On behalf of everyone working on Flock, thanks,
Tom Callaway
==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
12:54 p.m.
On 06/03/2013 10:06 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
Thanks to the Fedora Community for submitting 125 awesome talks,
hackfests, sprints and workshops for Flock, our new contributor conference!
We've taken those submissions and put them in the Fedora Elections web
application, and now, it is time for you to give us your feedback. These
proposals have been submitted by the Fedora community and we want the
Fedora community to tell us what _you_ want to see! Even if you cannot
attend Flock in person, these sessions will be streamed and recorded, so
your vote is appreciated!
If you have a Fedora Account (they are free to create), and have agreed
to the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA), you can vote for the
125 submissions here:
Tom/Anyone:
Is it purposeful to not have presenter's name next to each talk's Abstract ? Or is
it a
limitation of the talk proposal system ? Or am I just terribly blind ?
--
/kashyap
12:57 p.m.
Kashyap Chamarthy (kchamart(a)redhat.com) said:
Tom/Anyone:
Is it purposeful to not have presenter's name next to each talk's Abstract ? Or
is it a
limitation of the talk proposal system ? Or am I just terribly blind ?
From the message you quoted:
...
These submissions are mostly
anonymized (some people put their names or enough details in the
abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed speakers were). This is
intentional, as we are trying to eliminate an area of potential bias. We
want the ideas behind these submissions to be the area of focus, and not
be overly biased by the speaker.
...
Bill
3:28 a.m.
On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) wrote:
These submissions are mostly anonymized (some people put their names
or enough details in the abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed
speakers were). This is intentional, as we are trying to eliminate an
area of potential bias. We want the ideas behind these submissions to
be the area of focus, and not be overly biased by the speaker.
This sounds seriously misguided. I mean, I usually prefer attending
talks where I know that the presenter is actually involved in the
respective project, rather than just any random guy/gal.
I am all for levelling the playing field, but things like this sound
like they have pretty negative consequences for the quality of
talks.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
4:38 a.m.
2013/6/4 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de>
This sounds seriously misguided. I mean, I usually prefer attending
talks where I know that the presenter is actually involved in the
respective project, rather than just any random guy/gal.
I am all for levelling the playing field, but things like this sound
like they have pretty negative consequences for the quality of
talks.
Lennart
Maybe, we could highlight talks/hackfest/workshops made by their upstream
or Fedora maintainers when it concerns a specific project ?
Best regards,
H.
8:46 a.m.
On 06/04/2013 04:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) wrote:
> These submissions are mostly anonymized (some people put their names
> or enough details in the abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed
> speakers were). This is intentional, as we are trying to eliminate an
> area of potential bias. We want the ideas behind these submissions to
> be the area of focus, and not be overly biased by the speaker.
This sounds seriously misguided. I mean, I usually prefer attending
talks where I know that the presenter is actually involved in the
respective project, rather than just any random guy/gal.
I am all for levelling the playing field, but things like this sound
like they have pretty negative consequences for the quality of
talks.
When we publish the final schedule, we will have speaker names on them,
so you won't be choosing talks without knowing who the presenter is.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
8:55 a.m.
On Tue, 04.06.13 09:46, Tom Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) wrote:
On 06/04/2013 04:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> These submissions are mostly anonymized (some people put their names
>> or enough details in the abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed
>> speakers were). This is intentional, as we are trying to eliminate an
>> area of potential bias. We want the ideas behind these submissions to
>> be the area of focus, and not be overly biased by the speaker.
>
> This sounds seriously misguided. I mean, I usually prefer attending
> talks where I know that the presenter is actually involved in the
> respective project, rather than just any random guy/gal.
>
> I am all for levelling the playing field, but things like this sound
> like they have pretty negative consequences for the quality of
> talks.
When we publish the final schedule, we will have speaker names on them,
so you won't be choosing talks without knowing who the presenter is.
Well, but it sounds really weird choosing those talks from possible
non-involved people in the first place.
What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned (such as
Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field isn't actually
that levelled after all?
I am pretty sure there are better ways to level the playing field than
anonymizing most-but-not-all talks. For example, guarantee a certain
part of slots for newcomers or so...
Lennart
(Note that I neither submitted anything nor are planning to attend, I am
just noticing this because I find this such a weird choice)
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
9:02 a.m.
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
(such as
Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field isn't actually
that levelled after all?
Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts (or
describe themselves in such a way that it is obvious who they are) ended
up like this. We honestly didn't think that was going to happen.
This was an experiment. If it doesn't work, we don't have to do it again.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
9:16 a.m.
On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned (such as
> Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field isn't actually
> that levelled after all?
Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts (or
describe themselves in such a way that it is obvious who they are) ended
up like this. We honestly didn't think that was going to happen.
This was an experiment. If it doesn't work, we don't have to do it again.
In general, it's not surprising that the author often could be divined
from the abstract---after all, they are going to talk about their own
project (e.g. Lennart on systemd, Ajax on X driver infrastructure, Dan
Walsh on SELinux, etc). There just doesn't seem to be a way to avoid
that, and besides, past reputation does predict future performance. It's
for the editorial board to implement a diversity policy by inviting the
young'uns, if they wish so.
9:22 a.m.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400
Przemek Klosowski <przemek.klosowski(a)nist.gov> wrote:
On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
>> (such as Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field
>> isn't actually that levelled after all?
>
> Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts
> (or describe themselves in such a way that it is obvious who they
> are) ended up like this. We honestly didn't think that was going to
> happen.
>
> This was an experiment. If it doesn't work, we don't have to do it
> again.
In general, it's not surprising that the author often could be
divined from the abstract---after all, they are going to talk about
their own project (e.g. Lennart on systemd, Ajax on X driver
infrastructure, Dan Walsh on SELinux, etc). There just doesn't seem
to be a way to avoid that, and besides, past reputation does predict
future performance. It's for the editorial board to implement a
diversity policy by inviting the young'uns, if they wish so.
I disagree - this lets people judge proposed talks/sessions on what is
written.
I think it's a good idea and, if nothing else, it is just a
good trial. And that's enough.
-sv
10:07 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:22:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
I disagree - this lets people judge proposed talks/sessions on what
is
written.
I don't go to presentations because of the quality of the abstract. I go
to presentations based on whether or not I believe the speaker is
competent in the field they're talking about and able to communicate
that competence. It's vital information for making a realistic judgement
of whether a proposal should be in the final program or not.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
10:42 a.m.
On 06/04/2013 08:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:22:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I disagree - this lets people judge proposed talks/sessions on what is
> written.
I don't go to presentations because of the quality of the abstract. I go
to presentations based on whether or not I believe the speaker is
competent in the field they're talking about and able to communicate
that competence. It's vital information for making a realistic judgement
of whether a proposal should be in the final program or not.
Indeed. Abstract can be polished to hell and back to bring it to a certain
"quality". But
if I'm attending a talk, I'd rather look up the presenter. If it's a young/new
gun, and
topic piques my interest, I might go anyway :)
But these are personal preferences and classic bike-shedding topics. So, I'll stop my
monologue here :)
--
/kashyap
12:50 p.m.
On 06/04/2013 10:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400
Przemek Klosowski <przemek.klosowski(a)nist.gov> wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
>>> (such as Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field
>>> isn't actually that levelled after all?
>> Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts
>> (or describe themselves in such a way that it is obvious who they
>> are) ended up like this. We honestly didn't think that was going to
>> happen.
>>
>> This was an experiment. If it doesn't work, we don't have to do it
>> again.
> In general, it's not surprising that the author often could be
> divined from the abstract---after all, they are going to talk about
> their own project (e.g. Lennart on systemd, Ajax on X driver
> infrastructure, Dan Walsh on SELinux, etc). There just doesn't seem
> to be a way to avoid that, and besides, past reputation does predict
> future performance. It's for the editorial board to implement a
> diversity policy by inviting the young'uns, if they wish so.
>
I disagree - this lets people judge proposed talks/sessions on what is
written.
I think it's a good idea and, if nothing else, it is just a
good trial. And that's enough.
-sv
It is a very common thing to do in the academic world (conferences like the
USENIX FAST conference I am involved in do this).
The upside is that speakers who are not well known are given a chance to break
in with a good proposal.
In the academic world, it does more good than harm I think.
It will be interesting to see how it works in the open source space :)
Ric
10:26 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts
(or
describe themselves in such a way that it is obvious who they are) ended
up like this. We honestly didn't think that was going to happen.
This was an experiment. If it doesn't work, we don't have to do it again.
Hi,
After talking to people about the thought process and just voting
myself I think this is just great. Some of these proposed talks are
absolutely hilarious.
Thanks,
Dan
4012
days inactive
4019
days old
15 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Bill Nottingham -
Dan Mashal -
Haïkel Guémar -
Kashyap Chamarthy -
Lennart Poettering -
Matthew Garrett -
Przemek Klosowski -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ric Wheeler -
Seth Vidal -
Tom Callaway