Scoring Guidelines Using Sessionize

Thank you in advance for your efforts as a member of the Program Committee for KubeDay Israel 2023.

Below are the Scoring Guidelines and Best Practices to follow when reviewing your assigned proposals, as well as guides on Sessionize’s evaluation modes. Please bookmark this page for future reference. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the CNCF Content Team.

• Track Chair Selection Period: 1 May – 10 May
• Schedule Building: 11-12 May
• Schedule Announced: 17 May
• Event Date: 19 June, 2023

• Time Commitment: Expect to devote between 5-10 minutes per submission in your category. It’s recommended to review 10 to 15 submissions in one sitting and then take a break or step away. This approach can help you avoid burnout and provide you with a fresh perspective when you return to reviewing more proposals.

• Process Integrity: To maintain the fairness of the review process and prevent unwarranted bias, it’s crucial to keep the submissions and related feedback confidential. Please always comply with our Code of Conduct.

• Public + Author Interaction: To ensure fairness during the review process, it’s important that program committee members refrain from discussing submissions with authors and/or the general public. This means refraining from tweeting about them during the review process. However, it’s perfectly fine to tweet about sessions that have been accepted and that you’re excited to attend, once the schedule has been published.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are requested to evaluate submissions impartially by prioritizing their CNCF role over their company or other affiliations. In case a submission was authored by a colleague or someone closely associated with you, or in competition with you, please consider skipping the question to maintain the integrity of the evaluation process.

• Topic Re-Routing: If you think a presentation would be more appropriate for a different category, please provide feedback in the comments and we’ll consider relocating it to the appropriate track.

• Experience Level: Leverage your expertise to evaluate the audience’s proficiency level and assess the suitability of the presentation. If you think the presentation is not aligned with the experience level the speaker suggested, please provide feedback in the comments, specifying the level that would be a better match.

• Speakers with multiple submissions: Speakers are permitted to be featured in one session and one panel at most. If you come across more submissions from a speaker than the allowed limit, please make a note of this in the comment section and proceed with the evaluation.
• Breakout Sessions: When evaluating a breakout session, consider the following:
  • Is the submission written in a clear and concise manner?
  • Is the topic relevant and original, and do the speakers have the necessary expertise in the subject matter?
  • If the presentation focuses on a particular product from their company, does it avoid sounding overly promotional and remain engaging for the audience? Keep in mind that sessions that come across as a pitch or infomercial for their company are often poorly rated by the audience.
  • Who is the intended audience for the presentation? Does the abstract and description align with the expected level of expertise required from the audience?

• Panel Discussions: When evaluating a panel submission, consider the following:
  • Is the panel composed of diverse thought leaders who speak for approximately 80% of the time, leaving 20% for audience engagement? Are there both male and female panelists? Please note that for all CNCF events, at least one panelist must not identify as male.
  • Is the proposal coherent, with a clear indication of how the panel will progress within the allotted timeframe?
  • Have the panelists provided sample questions? Does the panel comprise of members from different organizations, including the moderator?
  • Conduct research on the moderator and panelists, if necessary, to ensure their expertise is relevant to the topic. Will the panelists offer diverse perspectives, or will they repeat the same points multiple times?
  • Are any of the panelists high-profile, and how would the panel be affected if one or two of them were unable to attend?

The Star rating evaluation mode is highly user-friendly, requiring only an examination of the session information and a rating between one to five stars. Additionally, half-star ratings (0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5) are also available for use. Upon completion, simply click the Save and Continue button to confirm your rating and proceed to the next session.

CNCF utilizes a Stars rating evaluation plan that involves multiple criteria. As an evaluator, you will be required to assess sessions based on the following four criteria, as opposed to assigning a singular overall rating:

• Overall Content: The relevance and coherence of the session’s content, the quality of the proposal, and the likelihood of effective delivery by the speaker.
• Originality: The degree to which the session presents new and innovative ideas or approaches, as well as the originality of its delivery.
• Relevance: The extent to which the session’s content provides new and exciting insights or information that is relevant to the conference.
• Speaker(s): The suitability of the proposed speaker(s) based on their expertise and alignment with the subject matter.

In addition, it is mandatory to provide feedback in the form of a comment for each session. It is important to ensure that feedback is constructive, especially for rejected proposals, as submitting authors may range from a VP at a large company to a university student. Constructive feedback may include highlighting the positive aspects of a proposal, offering helpful suggestions, and providing factual feedback.

It is crucial to avoid direct attacks and instead focus on objective feedback that can help improve the proposal. Moreover, we strongly advise against using vague comments like “Scoring was tough, I had to cut this” or “LGTM.” Instead, provide thoughtful and insightful comments that will assist the program chairs in making their final selections.

Once you have finished rating a session based on the criteria and provided constructive feedback, click on Save and continue to proceed to the next session. Please note that if your comments are deemed unconstructive, you may not be invited to serve as a program committee member in the future.

Track your progress

During the evaluation process, a progress bar will be displayed at the top of the page, providing an indication of your progress. If, at any point, you need to pause the evaluation process, click on the Stop and continue later button located above the progress bar. Upon returning, you can resume the evaluation from where you left off.

Complete the evaluation and view your stats

Once you’re done with the evaluation, you’ll automatically be redirected to the Evaluation page. By opening the evaluation plan you’ve just completed, you can view your statistics, as well as potentially change your mind on any of the sessions by clicking on the corresponding edit button.

Your scores will be combined with other members in your review track and the top 30% will be moved to the next stage of evaluation.

The Yes/No evaluation mode is simple to follow. Upon reviewing the session information, you may choose one of the three options:

• Yes – indicating that the session is suitable for the event
• No – indicating that the session is unsuitable for the event
• Maybe – indicating that you are not completely convinced, but would consider including the session in the event.

Track your progress

During the evaluation process, a progress bar will be displayed at the top of the page, providing an indication of your progress. If, at any point, you need to pause the evaluation process, click on the Stop and continue later button located above the progress bar. Upon returning, you can resume the evaluation from where you left off.

Complete the evaluation and view your stats

Once you’re done with the evaluation, you’ll automatically be redirected to the Evaluation page. By opening the evaluation plan you’ve just completed, you can view your statistics, as well as potentially change your mind on any of the sessions by clicking on the corresponding edit button.

When using the Comparison evaluation mode, your job is to compare and rank three sessions at a time. After examining the session’s details, you must rank them from best to worst. You don’t have to think about any other submitted sessions besides those you’re currently ranking. Upon completion, the sessions you’ve reviewed will be assigned a score and ranked from most-recommended to least-recommended.

You’re free to rank two or even all three sessions the same; in fact, that’s exactly what you should do in case you find them equally suitable for the event. However, doing so will prolong the evaluation process and slightly lower the final ranking quality.

Once you’re happy with your ranking, confirm it by clicking on the Submit your decision button.

Track your progress

During the evaluation process, a progress bar will be displayed at the top of the page, providing an indication of your progress. If, at any point, you need to pause the evaluation process, click on the Stop and continue later button located above the progress bar. Upon returning, you can resume the evaluation from where you left off.

Since the Comparison mode requires you to focus on nothing else but the three sessions you’re currently ranking, there are no downsides to pausing the evaluation at any given moment – even for a couple of days.  

Complete the evaluation and view your stats

Once you’re done with the evaluation, you’ll automatically be redirected to the Evaluation page. By opening the evaluation plan you’ve just completed, you can view your statistics. Due to the nature of the Comparison mode, it isn’t possible to change your mind about any of the rankings; this is where the Comparison mode differentiates from other evaluation modes.

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 us for assistance.