[Chat] Collecting general feedback about the conference?

[Michael Still]

All of these ideas are good, but they've also been tried in the past.

One of the issues is that the conference organizers are focussed on a
single year's conference, so they're heads down making that thing happen.
Collecting feedback on talks is really something that _future_ years care
about. However, the conference web site is provided by the current year, so
any work they did on a review system would be diverting resources from the
conference they signed up to deliver. This is especially true for 2017,
where the conference team chose to not use the system previously used for
LCA and build a new one, which diverted a lot of resources from other
things.

That said, the papers chairs do informally collect feedback. If you have
something positive (or negative) to say, I'd encourage you to reach out to
the LCA Papers Chairs at papers-chair at linux.org.au.

Michael




On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Tim Serong via Chat <
chat at lists.lca2017.linux.org.au> wrote:

> On 01/25/2017 06:08 PM, Michael Lake wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I'm generally in favour of a talk rating system but it would not be nice
> to have a system whereby the rating of all speakers is public knowledge.
> > Some speakers would be at the bottom of the barrel. That's good for the
> organisers to have but not to be made public just out of courtesy.
>
> Good for speakers too.  If my talk sucked, I want to know about it.  But
> I take your point about ratings being non-public by default.
>
> > One could though also have a public rating system of the top, say 10
> talks.  That way the bottom of that list is still being rated amount the
> top 10% of all talks.
>
> I like that idea.
>
> > Having a way to have private non-anonymous or anonymous feedback to the
> speaker, either good or suggestions for improvement, is fraught with
> ethical problems. It would be good to provide a way for attendees to
> provide feed back but we can't have a system whereby people can just heap
> shit on some speaker anonymously. It's a difficult problem to solve.
>
> If it's paper-based, everyone going into a talk gets one bit of paper
> (difficult to abuse).  If it's website based, all raters have to be
> registered conference attendees, be logged in, and are allowed one
> rating per talk (anonymously at rater's request).  In either case, if
> someone's going to be an asshole, at least they only get one shot per
> talk.  Most of us won't be assholes, so the constructive/positive should
> outweigh the nasty.  Worst case, all feedback could be moderated by
> conference organisers/volunteers if bad behaviour is seen to be a
> significant risk.
>
> Tim
>
> >
> > Mike Lake
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Chat [chat-bounces at lists.lca2017.linux.org.au] on behalf of Tim
> Serong via Chat [chat at lists.lca2017.linux.org.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:56 PM
> > To: chat at lists.lca2017.linux.org.au
> > Subject: Re: [Chat] Collecting general feedback about the conference?
> >
> > On 01/24/2017 09:24 PM, Jan Groth via Chat wrote:
> >> First of all: I had a great time in Hobart and would very much like to
> >> thank everyone who participated and contributed to the conference!
> >>
> >> After Geelong 2016 this was my second Linuxconf, and it's probably
> >> only natural to compare the two events:
> >>
> >> While 2017 certainly was a good conference, I must say that I found
> >> 2016 far more relevant for me. That is more talks about topics that I
> >> consider interesting and relevant, and fewer talks about topics that I
> >> didn't manage to connect to.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that others have a different perception - which is perfectly
> >> fine - but I was wondering if there are channels to collect this kind
> >> of feedback (ideally in a more systematic and fine-grained way)?
> >
> > There's nothing official along those lines for LCA 2017.  Some F/OSS
> > conferences have wound up with ad-hoc speaker feedback on third party
> > sites (lanyrd maybe?) but I'm not sure if that's happened for LCAs or
> > not offhand.
> >
> >>From some previous discussions I've had there's at least a few ways
> > speaker feedback could potentially be facilitated in future:
> >
> > - Build a rating thingy into the conference web site, so delegates can
> > rate talks (delegates have to remember to rate talks).
> > - Same as above, but with a mobile app.
> > - Hand out bits of paper at each talk to collect feedback (either "tick
> > the boxes", or a simpler "dump red/amber/green pieces of paper in a
> > bucket as a hand-wavey quality metric")
> >
> > The paper based options probably get more feedback from more people than
> > the online ones, but are more load on volunteers.
> >
> >> Taking that idea one step further: For future conferences, would it be
> >> worthwhile to collect feedback on a talk / presenter level?
> >>
> >> * I've seen a few outstanding presentations and certainly wouldn't
> >> mind letting the speaker know about it.
> >>
> >> * I also went to talks where someone presented massive walls of text
> >> and simply read out slide after slide after slide in a very monotonous
> >> voice. The guy next to me even fell asleep, I'm not making this up.
> >>
> >> * Sometimes only very small things went wrong, e.g. the presenter
> >> typing into the bottom line of a console - which only the people in
> >> the front row could see, but everyone else being too polite to mention
> >> / yell out.
> >>
> >> If I was a speaker I would be very happy to receive this kind of
> >> feedback and try to improve for the next time.
> >
> > Likewise.  I really appreciate feedback when I've been a speaker,
> > because it helps me in my attempts to improve my presentations.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tim
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chat mailing list
> > Chat at lists.lca2017.linux.org.au
> > http://lists.lca2017.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/chat
> > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
> accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or
> copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
> views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
> where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views
> of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments,
> please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please
> consider the environment before printing this email.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tim Serong
> Senior Clustering Engineer
> SUSE
> tserong at suse.com
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lca2017.linux.org.au
> http://lists.lca2017.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/chat
>



-- 
Rackspace Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lca2017.linux.org.au/pipermail/chat/attachments/20170125/3b1c7be5/attachment.html>