On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:53:24PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > I'm not completely happy with any of the proposals (including mine).
>
> Neither :-/
Seems to be hard to really find a clue to name levels.
> Possibly we should just do away with the levels for next
> year?
IMHO a *solution* will not be found this year. The problem is: If we
move the decision to next year we will remember this problem which comes
up every year also when it is late. So we should put a decision what
to do onto this years agenda to have a ready solution *before* we start
with the old habit next year.
To make clear how honest I'm about this: I refuse trying to explain this
concept I did not really understood myself to anybody who might ask.
Beeing a member in the talk committee and schedule team always puts
me in a situation to explain this. So I refuse to work in these teams
if this concept will not be changed next year. (Even if this sounds
harsh, this is not intended to be harsh - I just want to express how
serious I take this issue. It was and is fun to work in these teams.)
> I do feel it is important to rate the proposals - be it for
> sponsorship, be it for a bit of academic attitude, I don't know... We
> have (and this year I was part of it - And it does carry some pride
> for me!) an academic committee. But yes, it is a point we should
> probably debate on...
Yes, we have to. As far as I understand the main reason was and is
to give the sponsoring team a clue for a reasonable decision whom to
sponsor. At least nobody came up with an other reason when I asked.
Yes, I have heard that there are official talks which are not sponsored
but I guess this is because the speaker did not asked for sponsoring
anyway.
If we fail to find reasonable names for this two level concept I wonder
whether the two level concept is right at all. So what about just
publishing the rating between 0 and 100 which the events recieved by
the talk committee. IMHO this rating would be easy to understand for
everybody and the sponsoring team could just set a limit for sponsoring
depending from the money available for sponsoring. IMHO this is more
open, more informative and solves our problem for finding names with
one rush making the queston for a name void by just using a rating number.
> On previous years, scheduling decisions were a bit stronger IIRC -
> Official talks were guaranteed not to be scheduled simultaneously with
> other official talks. This criteria was not followed this year (also
> probably because we approved more talks as official?).
Yes. Last year we had a number of events which nearly fitted to one
main room. Only a fiew events had to be scheduled in an additional
room and there was much space left for late comers. This year the
situation is different. Schedule was oriented on the ranking number
placing the highest ranking numbers into the Upper talk room (so they
can not compete with each other) and once all slots were filled we
continued in lower talk room. IMHO this strategy fits perfectly to
my suggestion above.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
