micah dijo [Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:33:59PM -0400]: > (...) > 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.
FWIW, that's one of the reasons we rated on three different axises(?). And, at least personally, even if I didn't rate those talks very high on "relevance", I didn't rate them negatively (some even with a single '+'), and often very positively in the two other dimensions. I think that is consistent with this snippet you quoted and I requote: > 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? And... IIRC, they had good chances of being accepted on their merits, at least when I rated them. -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
