Wookey <[email protected]> writes: > +++ Gaudenz Steinlin [2014-09-25 12:13 +0200]: >> Wookey <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > For any useful technical discussion (as opposed to presentations) a >> > longer session is needed (we could definitely do better at having >> > more engineering discussion and less presentation, (and I include >> > myself in that). It's one of the things UDS did better than debconf) >> >> I agree with this. We should encourage more technical design >> discussions. What's currently holding up teams to have such discussions >> at Debconf? In my perception these nowdays mostly happen at dedicated >> sprints. > > For intensive work this is probably true. Nothing is stopping people > doing more of it at debconf (except total hours in a week :-), but we > just have a bit of a habit of giving talks, more than trying to get > input on design decisions. > >> I'm not sure if the lack of such sessions has to do with the conference >> format or if it's just that someone from a team has to sit down and >> propose something and this is currently too much work and most of these >> discussions happen in ad-hoc sessions or the "hallway track". > > The difference between UDS-style subject-oriented 'goldfish bowl' > sessions and the otherwise-excellent 'hallway track' is that the > former is inclusive of the people you _didn't_ already know were > interested. The hallway/debian-style way of working tends to mean you > only discuss something with the people you already know will find it > relevant. There are often some other people you don't already > know around, that would in fact make a really useful contribution. > > Perhaps setting one room of 3 out goldfish-bowl style to make the > whole mic-passing game more efficient (or even better have 2-3 mics > on stands so remote participation and group discussion is possible > without a lot of mic-passing wait-states. (The IRC-on-big-screen > feature of that setup also works moderately well (an advocate in the > room is much more effective)). > > Having one room out of 3 like this would encourage the idea that (at > least) 1/3rd of sessions are expected to be in this format. >
To me this sounds like a very good proposal we should try out. Having one room setup for BoFs permanently would help having these sessions in an adequate setup. I also like the idea of having IRC on a projector. Gaudenz _______________________________________________ Debconf-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
