Flock proposals now open for community voting

Lennart Poettering mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Tue Jun 4 13:55:32 UTC 2013

On Tue, 04.06.13 09:46, Tom Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) wrote:

> On 06/04/2013 04:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcallawa at 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...


(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.

More information about the devel mailing list