Hi all, At our recent talks team meeting we discussed the talks rating criteria (Relevance, Actuality and Acceptance[0]), and issues that people had with them. I brought up the 'relevance' rating criteria as something that I had some issues with, and I promised at the meeting I would bring it up to the list.
Personally, I think Debconf can both get a bit boring if the 'relevance' is applied too strictly, and too de-focused if it is applied to broadly. To make a great conference there should be a balance, and I feel like right now it is being applied *very* strictly, and I'd like to advocate that a broader interpretation be entertained. I think it is good to have things like FTP-masters give a talk, but to exclude things that aren't as closely connected to Debian as a core-infrastructure team threatens to make Debconf too insular and staid. Things that are Debian-related, such as those that are part of the broader social context, *are* actually relevant and very interesting to not only Debian Developers, but the non-Developer FLOSS fanatics who will be coming to the conference. The Free Software community is, if you ask me, *very* relevant to Debian. For example, to cut out the FSF or the FLOSS track from Debconf, when we should be taking advantage of the proximity of their great minds and very close affinity to Debian, would be a great shame if it were done because a very rigid interpretation of "relevance". I am not advocating that the Debconf become a generalized FLOSS conference, there are plenty of these. In fact, I do believe that Debconf should mostly be Debian, but to ignore the fact that Debian is part of a larger context fails to acknowledge our role in the broader FLOSS world that we travel in, work in and support. I'm afraid we are unnecessarily cutting off the rest of this world through the strict application of the 'relevance' definition in the talks rating process. I've been applying a broader interpretation of 'relevance' than I think others have, and have been a little disheartened to see talks that are not so intensely related (such as the FLOSS track) getting very negative scores and comments about how unrelated to Debian they are. If the talks are relevant, the person submitting them are reasonably well-known, then it seems like a good idea to mix it up a little bit. micah 0. This is how talks are being rated: Talks are rated in three categories Each category has five levels, -100, -50, 0, 50, 100. Larger numbers are better. * Relevance - There can be great talks, but some are not appropriate for the main track at DebConf. The Relevance category is a measure of this. * Actuality - speaker seems to know the topic and (as far as i know) is capable of presenting it * Acceptance - How well will attendees like this talk and desire to attend?
pgpZBbiUAk9zq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
