On 05/22/2013 03:47 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I suppose I'd be one of those to disagree with the intent as one
of
the criteria for evaluating a talk would be whether the speaker is
known to be good at making informative things entertaining and whether
the speaker is knowledgable in the area they are talking on.
Question though: If the selection committee sees the presenter names,
how does that hiding the names on the public page prevent bias?
(perhaps I've missed out on there being a community voted
pre-screening or something...)
The process is:
* Submission (displays anonymously)
* Community voting for all FAS accounts with CLA (displays anonymously)
* Post-voting window, scheduling committee sees voting results (with
full presenter names).
It doesn't prevent bias entirely, but we wanted to make sure there was a
sanity pass in case I submit a talk on something I'm completely
unqualified for (e.g. "Optimizing the KVM hypervisor for the XBox One"),
or the voting is gamed (e.g. "I hate Fedora and I will throw rotten
fruit at people for 45 minutes." from "Ima Troll" gets a million votes).
Then, when the schedule is finalized, we'll publish it with the names
(and bios).
Perhaps the flock organizers can ask people who don't need
anonymity
to add their names to their proposal abstract (via blogs or other).
The submit a proposal page could also be updated to mention that
adding your name to the abstract is the only way people viewing the
list of proposals will know who is giving the talk.
I like this idea. I think we can perhaps add a field in the web app for
"anonymity" and then ask all the folks who submitted a talk to go back
and uncheck it if they'd like to be public.
~tom
==
Fedora Project