📝 docs(flock): Update CFP Reviewer Guidelines for Flock 2026

This commit is a major reworking of the CFP Reviewer Guidelines page, to
match the focus, themes, and other details for Flock 2026. I am making
several of these changes following a live, recorded call for the Flock
CFP reviewer committee, which consists of members of Council, FESCo, and
Mindshare Committee. This is a critical doc to help reviewers both
understand the Pretalx interface and better understand the meaning of
their votes in the review system.

Signed-off-by: Justin Wheeler <jwheel@redhat.com>

modules/flock/pages/cfp-pretalx-reviewer-guidelines.adoc

@@ -3,16 +3,16 @@ include::ROOT:partial$attributes.adoc[]
 = Pretalx CFP Reviewer Guide
 Oluwatosin Olatunji; Justin Wheeler
 v1.1; 2026-02-10
+:description: The official guide for Flock to Fedora CFP reviewers. Learn how to navigate Pretalx, evaluate proposals against the conference themes, and apply the scoring rubric to help curate the conference program.
 :page-aliases: commops:flock:cfp-reviewer-guidelines.adoc, community:flock:cfp-pretalx-reviewer-guidelines.adoc, community:flock:cfp-reviewer-guidelines.adoc
 
-____
+[abstract]
 Thank you for contributing as a reviewer for Flock to Fedora!
 Your expertise is vital in shaping an outstanding conference experience.
 This guide is designed to streamline your navigation of the Pretalx review process for Flock.
-____
 
-This page provides guidance to call for proposal (CFP) reviewers for the https://flocktofedora.org/[Flock to Fedora] conference.
-CFP reviewers are invited by core Flock organizers as volunteers to help curate diverse content and programming at our contributor conference.
+This page provides guidance to call for proposal (CFP) reviewers for the https://fedoraproject.org/flock/[Flock to Fedora] conference.
+CFP reviewers are invited as volunteers by Flock core organizers to help curate diverse content and programming at our contributor conference.
 
 [IMPORTANT]
 ====
@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ Your role plays a significant part in ensuring a high-quality experience for Flo
 This guide is organized into multiple sections below.
 
 
-[[account]]
-== Reviewer account access
+[[access]]
+== Gain Reviewer account access
 
 You will receive an invitation from a Pretalx administrator with login instructions.
 You will be prompted to create a reviewer profile if it is your first time.
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ image::pretalx-invite-acceptance.png[Screenshot of the dialogue to accept the em
 
 
 [[proposals]]
-== Proposal access
+== View proposals
 
 Upon logging in, your dashboard will display a list of proposals assigned to you for review.
 Also note that depending on settings, reviewers will be able to view and review all proposals, or only assigned proposals (determined by the Pretalx administrator).
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ image::pretalx-reviewer-dashboard.png[Screenshot of the reviewer dashboard from
 A Pretalx proposal submission is typically composed of a title, abstract, track, theme(s), a brief speaker bio, and other notes.
 If blind review for reviewers is enabled, speaker identities are hidden.
 
-All reviewers can give up to four points to a session.
+All reviewers can give *up to four points* to a session.
 Each point is weighed on a different criteria, much like a rubric.
 The four point categories guide each reviewer to reflect on four different aspects of the proposal:
 
@@ -62,9 +62,9 @@ The four point categories guide each reviewer to reflect on four different aspec
   Is it thoughtful?
   Does the speaker adequately describe their topic in a way that others can understand?
 . *Theme Relevance*:
-  All proposals link themselves to one or many of the https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/flock-2024-cfp-until-april-21st/[six themes]:
-  Accessibility (a11y), Reaching the World, Community Sustainability, Technology Innovation and Leadership, and Ecosystem Connections.
-  Does the connection between proposal and theme make sense?
+  All proposals link themselves to one or many of the four themes:
+  _*Freedom* – The Open Frontier_; _*Friends* – Our Fedora Story_; _*Features* – Engineering Fedora's Core_; _*First* – Blueprint for the Future: Fedora Linux 45 & 46_.
+  Does the connection between the proposal and theme make sense?
   Is it a good fit?
 . *Probability of Success*:
   Is the speaker adequately prepared to deliver their content?
@@ -77,14 +77,10 @@ The four point categories guide each reviewer to reflect on four different aspec
   If there is a session you just _really like_ and you have a hard time explaining why, this point is for you.
   Alternatively, if there is something you really don't like, you can also downvote it (although we likely want to know why in the comments).
 
-[[voting]]
-== Voting
+The following sections explain each point in more detail and provides guidance to CFP reviewers on how to cast a vote.
 
-The CFP system allows a reviewer to cast a vote between -3 and 3, where -3 means definitely not to accept and a 3 is a perfect submission.
-We ask each reviewer to give each of their points a significant meaning to help standardize the value of the voting system.
-
-[[voting-understandable]]
-=== Q1: Is the proposal understandable, clear, and written in acceptable English?
+[[voting-quality]]
+=== Q1: Submission Quality
 
 * *Give one point (+1)*:
   If abstract is written clearly and the submitter did a good job of describing their topics.
@@ -94,8 +90,8 @@ We ask each reviewer to give each of their points a significant meaning to help
 * *Take one point (-1)*:
   The abstract is poorly written and/or it is unclear what the speaker is proposing.
 
-[[voting-thematic]]
-=== Q2: Does the proposal have a clear connection to a Flock theme?
+[[voting-themes]]
+=== Q2: Theme Relevance
 
 * *Give one point (+1)*:
   The proposal has a clear connection to a Flock 2026 theme.
@@ -124,17 +120,24 @@ As a reminder, the Flock 2026 themes are below:
   With the next few Fedora Linux releases serving as the foundation for RHEL 11 and EPEL 11, this is a critical time.
   We are looking for forward-looking technical talks on the changes, features, and architectural decisions in F45 and F46 that will shape the future of the operating system, from the community desktop to the core of the enterprise platforms.
 
-[[voting-quality]]
-=== Q3: As a CFP reviewer and Fedora contributor, do you believe the proposal advances the quality of Flock and the Fedora community?
-
-This question requires subjectivity.
-However, as a member of the CFP reviewer team, your subjectivity is what we are looking for.
-This point is left up to you to decide how to assign it.
-You can come up with your own criteria or just follow a gut feeling.
+[[voting-success]]
+=== Q3: Probability of Success
 
 * *Give one point (+1)*:
-  You believe that this proposal advances the quality of Flock to Fedora and the Fedora community.
+  You believe that this proposal has a high probability of success at Flock.
+  The speaker(s) appear to have sufficient knowledge and expertise to present the topic at Flock.
 * *Give no point (+0)*:
-  You are unsure whether this proposal advances the quality of Flock to Fedora and the Fedora community.
+  It is unclear whether the speaker will be able to deliver the content successfully at Flock.
 * *Take one point (-1)*:
-  You believe this proposal reduces the quality of Flock to Fedora and the Fedora community.
+  You believe that this proposal will not be successful at Flock.
+  This could be because the proposal is too ambitious, it is not relevant to a Fedora contributor audience, or the speaker does not seem to understand the topic they are proposing.
+
+[[voting-appeal]]
+=== Q4: Personal Appeal
+
+* *Give one point (+1)*:
+  You see _positive_ value for this session to be at Flock, based on your personal involvement with Fedora.
+* *Give no point (+0)*:
+  You see _neutral_ value for this session to be at Flock, based on your personal involvement with Fedora.
+* *Take one point (-1)*:
+  You see _negative_ value for this session to be at Flock, based on your personal involvement with Fedora.