On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 09:45:59PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > The idea is as I tried to sketch in my last mail: Stop sorting the > talks into two groups where we are unable to find proper names for. > Well, OK, it might be that we *really* have to reject a talk if we > find out that a speaker should no hold the event for whatever reason. > Just make the rating number visible for everybody and advise the > sponsoring team to work down the list top down until money pool is > empty (or a certain limit is reached). IMHO this is simple and > transparent and as long I have not overlooked something I think we > should apply this.
>From talking on IRC, I think people like this plan. The one improvement that greater than one person thought would be useful (including me) was to select some of the talks to be named "Featured". This can be done very late, so we don't even have to make a big deal out of it. I think it would help guide people to know what is most interesting. If someone asks why they aren't scheduled/aren't scheduled at a good time, we can say "We give priority to featured talks". However, still, we try to keep it as flat as possible, and de-emphasize this. > Last year I had a name finding discussion and I learned that it has > a very high bike shedding potential. I'm also there does not exist yes... but I think there is a general agreement now. We'll see on Monday. Thanks for your help, - Richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - lefschetz: up 149 days, 20:18 | http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free" _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
