[WIP] First try at writing down our expectations for the review process

standards/review-recommendations.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Review Recommendations
+
+
+For good results in the CfP, reviews should take multiple decision rounds. The initial round must be blind to author details. Submitters should be encouraged to refrain from including personal biographical details (such as name, location, or links to personal websites) in their proposals unless they are essential to the content of the proposal.
+
+Before the first round of review, one team member may review each proposal and remove any inessential personal information that may bias the blind review (do not make any changes to the intention of the proposal). This person should abstain from voting on any proposal during the blind review round.
+
+In the first round of voting the reviewers should vote purely on the quality of the talk proposal itself, without considering whether the topic is interesting to them specifically and ignoring their own bias for or against the topic. Reviewers should abstain from voting on a proposal if they feel biased or have a conflict of interest.
+There are many ways a proposal can be well written, one of them is having a very unique and special topic.
+
+Reviewers may leave additional comments on the proposals for later consideration during the review process.
+
+In the second round of the decision process personal information can be revealed.
+
+[ talk about further round selection, fitting for program guidelines ]
+
+
+
+## Resources
+
+[fill in]