> Small correction: Yes, we did that last year. This year we rejected
> talks not accepted by the commitee, but left the possibility to
> propose a BoF instead.
This brings up th question: What was the composition of the
academic committee? What are the criteria for acceptance as a member?
What are the criteria for accepting talks? When I submit my papers
to peer reviewed journals, the talks are often forwarded to experts
in the field -- and the criteria for selecting these external
reviewers is public. Also, I get detailed feedback about the lacunae
in my talk, and am invited to submit an improved version, or told why
it is not acceptable.
It would be nice to have a more transparent selection process
(or perhaps let the audience decide, see below).
An interesting idea came up during debconf; now that we have
software for people to vote on talks, and indicate which talks they
would be interested in attending. With such a mechanism in place, I
think we can replace the academic committee, except perhaps to fill
a few slots left open for the organizers to give to less popular but
desrving talks a chance.
I would much rather have a better insight into how talks were
selected, and more so, why the rejected talks were rejected. If it is
based on some perception of relevance or interest, I would suggest
that the registered participants are better judge of that than any
small group of individuals.
manoj
--
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Groucho Marx
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
_______________________________________________
Debconf-discuss mailing list
Debconf-discuss@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
