评分准则和最佳实践
Scoring Guidelines + Best Practices

概述 Overview

在此感谢您加入2021年 KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 计划委员会，此次中国线上峰会将于 2021 年 12 月 9 日至 10 日举行，感谢您的支持。以下是您审核一系列提案时所需遵从的官方CFP评分准则和最佳实践。请将此页面加入书签以便于参考。如有任何问题，请将邮件发送至 Cody Liskh。

Thank you in advance for your efforts as a member of the Program Committee for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon + China 2021 – Virtual, taking place December 9-10, 2021. These are the official CFP Scoring Guidelines and Best Practices to use when reviewing your set of proposals. Please bookmark this page for easy reference. If you have any questions, please email Cody Liskh.

重要日期一般信息 + 重要日期

• 计划委员会审核期：2021 年 8 月 2 日（星期一）至 2021 年 8 月 13 日（星期五）
• 必须完成至少50%分配提案的审核：2021 年 8 月 9 日，星期一
• 必须完成100%分配提案的审核：美国太平洋时间 8 月 13 日（星期五）晚上11:59
• 分会主席甄选期：2021 年 8 月 16 日 (星期一) 至 2021 年 8 月 27 日 (星期五)
• 联合主席甄选期 + 日程安排设定：2021 年 8 月 30 日（星期一）至 2021 年 9 月 10 日（星期五）
• 日程通告日期：2021 年 9 月 27 日（星期一）
• 活动举办日期：2021 年 12 月 9 日至 10 日

Important Dates to Remember

• Program Committee Review Period: Monday, August 2 – Friday, August 13, 2021
• Must have at least 50% of your assigned proposals reviewed: Monday, August 9, 2021.
• Must have 100% of your assigned proposals reviewed: 11:59 pm PDT, Friday, August, 13.
• Track Chair Selection Period: Monday, August 16 – Friday, August 27, 2021
• Co-Chair Selection Period + Schedule Building: Monday August 30 – Friday September 10, 2021
• Schedule Announced: Monday, September 27, 2021
• Event Dates: December 9-10, 2021

评分准则

根据内容、原创性、相关性和演讲者，按照从5到1的级别对每个提案的质量进行评分：

• 5（优秀）
• 4（高于平均水平）
• 3（平均水平）
• 2（低于平均水平）
• 1（差）

提示：您需要对您审核的每个提案发表意见，详细说明评分原因。

对于每个提案，您均需通过选择“是”或“否”来表明您最终是否同意将其纳入获准计划。

如果遇到一个似乎与您正在审核的主题不符的提案，请在可选下拉菜单中指出您认为该提案最适合的主题。请仍然使用通用审核流程对该提案进行评分。

Scoring Guidelines

Grade the quality of each proposal on a 5 to 1 grading scale for content, originality, relevance, and speaker(s):

• 5 (Excellent)
• 4 (Above Average)
• 3 (Average)
• 2 (Below Average)
• 1 (Poor)

Reminder: You are required to leave comments for each proposal you review, detailing the reasoning for your score.

For each proposal, you will indicate whether or not you see it ultimately being part of the accepted program by stating “yes” or “no.”

If you come across a proposal that does not seem to fit in the topic you are reviewing, you will indicate which topic you think the proposal fits best within an optional drop-down menu. Please still grade this proposal as you would any others within your review set.

审核流程最佳实践

• 时间投入：请计划总共花4-50小时来审核您手中的所有提案，具体取决于您所分配的提案数量。目标是一次审核10-15个分会提案，然后稍事休息。这有助于防止倦怠，并让您以全新眼光审查更多提案。
• 流程完整性：请务必保护审核流程完整性，并对提交的提案和您的意见保密，从而避免不当偏见。请查看并遵守我们的行为准则。
• 公众与作者互动：为了确保审核流程公平公正，计划委员会成员不得与作者和/或公众讨论提交提案内容（例如，请勿发布任何推文）。在日程安排发布后，您可以随时发布有关期待参加获准分会的推文。
• 利益冲突：在对提案进行评分时，要求评审人担任“KubeCon + CloudNativeCon”职务，而非公司或其他关联公司角色，以便公平评价所有提案。如果某一提案是由与您紧密合作的同事或与您有密切联系或竞争关系的人员撰写，请将其标记为利益冲突，然后跳过。
• 审核指标： 
  • 如上所述，评级系统分为5个选项：5（优秀）、4（高于平均水平）、3（平均水平）、2（低于平均水平）、1（差）。重要的是，您要强调您的推荐可信度以及给出评分的原因。审核提案时，请谨记以下标准：
    • 相关性 – 内容是否给出了令人兴奋的新颖见解，而非过时信息？内容是否与大会息息相关？
    • 原创性 – 这是否是一次原创演讲，而非演讲者老调重弹？内容呈现方式是否原创？
    • 有效性 – 演讲内容是否具有深远意义？还是老生常谈？演讲者表达是否缺乏重点？
    • 演讲质量 – 提案是否引人入胜并经过深思熟虑？背景材料是否表明演讲者将带来精彩演讲？
    • 重要性 – 内容对 KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 受众有多重要？
    • 丰富经验 – 该演讲者是发表这一演讲的合适人选吗？他们在主题方面的经验是否与提议内容相契合？
  • 对于每个提案，我们将询问您：“总体而言，您是否希望此提案通过大会审核？”在您审核的提案中，只有约25%的申请将获得通过。
  • 为了协助分会主席和联合主席进行主题演讲甄选，您需要回答针对每个提案提出的如下问题，“您是否推荐此演讲亮相主题演讲舞台？”上述演讲应优中选优，并对全部KubeCon + CloudNativeCon受众具有吸引力且振奋人心。
  • 如果您认为某个演讲更适合其他主题，请通过回答最后一个问题来指明主题名称。在交由分会主席进行审核时，该提案将被列入其推荐主题中。
• 拥有多个提案的演讲者：我们不接受同一演讲者发表多次演讲。如果您有权审核同一演讲者提供的多个优秀提案，则在回答问题“您是否同意将此提案纳入大会获准计划”时，仅可批准其中一项提案，以供计划联合主席审核。
  请给出审核意见，说明您为何优先选择其一。
• 审核意见：请记住，提案作者可能是大型公司的副总裁或大学生。确保您的反馈具有建设性，尤其是对于被拒绝的提案，因为我们确实收到了反馈请求，可能会传达一些您的意见（但将保持匿名）。相关审核要素，请参考以下示例：
  • 强调提案的积极方面。
  • 提供建设性反馈，比如指出“如果……会有所帮助”，并适当用事实说明。
  • 避免直接攻击，比如不要说“此人谈吐极差”，而是说“从YouTube视频来看，其演讲风格可能不太适合我们”。
• 小组座谈：理想的小组座谈应该由不同的思想领袖组成，并且80%的时间用于演讲、20%的时间与受众互动。审核小组座谈提案时的注意事项：
  • 小组成员是否多样化？是否有多种性别？所有KubeCon + CloudNativeCon活动的注意事项：所有小组座谈都必须至少有一位女性成员。
  • 提案内容是否连贯一致？是否清晰说明了35分钟以内的会议安排？他们能否在既定的35分钟内完成提案中的所有内容？
  • 他们是否提供了问题示例？
  • 小组成员是否来自不同的组织（包括主持人）？
  • 如果需要，请对小组成员和主持人进行背景调查。他们的经验是否与主题相关？
  • 小组成员会提供不同的观点还是赘述四次？
  • 小组成员中有知名人士吗？
  • 如果有1-2位成员无法参加，这会对小组座谈产生什么影响？
• 分组会议：主题专家发表视角新颖或独特的演讲。审核分组会议演讲提案时的注意事项：
  • 提案编写是否精心？
  • 该主题是否中肯、新颖？他们是否被视为主题专家？
  • 他们是在谈论公司的特定产品吗？如果是，那么这是为了引证还是宣传？请记住，进行企业推销或宣传的会议通常在观众中的评价很差。
  • 他们的目标客户是谁？摘要和描述是否符合相关专业主题？

Review Process Best Practices

• Time Commitment: Please plan on committing 4-50 hours total to review all of the submissions in your track, depending on the amount you have been assigned. Aim to do 10-15 sessions at a time – then take a break / walk away. This helps prevent burnout and allows you to see more proposals with fresh eyes.
• Process Integrity: It is very important to protect the integrity of the review process, and to avoid undue bias, by keeping the submissions and your comments on them confidential. Please review and adhere to our Code of Conduct.
• Public & Author Interaction: To ensure an unbiased review process, program committee members should not discuss submissions with authors and/or the overall public (i.e., please no tweeting). Of course, please feel free to tweet about accepted sessions that you are excited to attend once the schedule has been published.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are asked to wear their “KubeCon + CloudNativeCon” hats rather than the company or other affiliation when scoring submissions so that you rate all submissions fairly. If a submission was written by a colleague you work closely with or someone that you are seen to be associated with or in competition with, please skip by marking as a conflict of interest.
• Review Metrics: 
  • As listed above, the ranking system is divided into 5 options: 5 (Excellent), 4 (Above Average), 3 (Average), 2 (Below Average), 1 (Poor). It is important that you highlight your level of confidence in your recommendation and the reasons why you gave the score you did. When reviewing proposals, keep in mind the following criteria:
    • Relevance – Does the content provide takeaways that are new and exciting vs information that was “so last year?” Is the content relevant to the conference?
    • Originality – Is this a presentation that is original and not one that a speaker repeats at every conference? Is the way the content is presented original?
    • Soundness – Does the content make sense in delivery or is it all over the place? Does the speaker seem to lack focus?
    • Quality of Presentation – Is the proposal engaging and well thought out? Does the background material suggest the speaker will deliver this presentation effectively?
    • Importance – How important is the content for the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon audience?
    • Experience – Is this speaker a good person to deliver this presentation? Does their experience with the subject matter align with the proposed content?
  • You’ll be asked for each proposal, “Overall, do you want to see this session at this conference?” Only about 25% of your proposals should get a “yes” vote.
  • To assist the track and co-chairs with keynote selection, you will answer the question for each proposal, “Would you recommend this talk for the keynote stage?” These should be talks that are the best of the best and would be incredibly exciting and engaging for the entire KubeCon + CloudNativeCon audience.
  • If you believe a talk would be better suited in a different topic, please use the last question to indicate which topic. This proposal will be filtered into its suggested topic when given to the track chairs for review.
• Speakers with multiple submissions: We will not accept more than one talk from the same speaker. If you are in the position of reviewing more than one strong proposal from the same speaker, you can help the program co-chairs by only giving one of them a response of “yes” when answering the question, “do you see this session being part of the accepted programming for this conference.” Please use your comments to indicate why you prefer one talk over another.
• Review Comments: Keep in mind that submitting authors may be a VP at a large company or a university student. Ensure your feedback is constructive, in particular for rejected proposals, as we do receive requests for feedback and we may pass on some comments (though we would not associate them with you). Good examples of review elements include:
  • Highlighting the positive aspects of a proposal.
  • Providing constructive feedback, “It would have been helpful if…” and include facts when applicable.
  • Avoid direct attacks “Their YouTube video gives me concerns about their speaking style” rather than “this person is a terrible speaker.”
• Panel Discussions: The ideal panel is comprised of diverse thought leaders who talk about 80% of the time with 20% audience interaction. Some things to keep in mind when reviewing a panel submission:
  • Is the panel diverse, is there a mix of gender on the panel? Note for all KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Events: All panels are required to have at least one speaker that does not identify as a man.
  • Is the submission cohesive and does it provide a clear view of how the panel would progress for 35 minutes? Could they cover everything within the proposal in the given 35 minutes?
  • Have they included any sample questions?
  • Does the panel include panelists from different organizations, including the moderator?
  • Research the panelists and moderator, if needed. Is their experience relevant to the topic?
  • Will the panelists provide diverse perspectives or will they repeat the same thing four times?
  • Are there any high-profile panelists?
  • In the instance that 1-2 of the panelists are unable to attend how would it impact the panel?
• Breakout Sessions: A presentation is delivered by a topic expert with a fresh or unique point of view. Some things to keep in mind when reviewing presentation proposals:
  • Is the submission well written?
  • Is the topic relevant, original and are they considered to be subject matter experts?
  • Are they talking about a specific product from their company? If so, is it engaging in a way that is not advertorial? Keep in mind that sessions that come across as a pitch or infomercial for their company are most often rated very poorly among the audience.
  • Who is their target audience? Does the abstract and description match up with the expertise required?

联系我们 Contact Us

如果您需要任何有关审核提案的建议，或者对审核流程或我们建议的最佳实践有疑问，请联系 Cody Liskh 寻求帮助

If you require any assistance reviewing proposals or have questions about the review process or any of the best practices we have suggested, please contact Cody Liskh for assistance.