Hi, thanks for the write-up and your work on talks selections! You seem to be doing a great job! :-)
3 small comments and 1 question below.
On Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 0) we have both "main-room" and "non-main-room" proposals that were
> desired to be part of tracks. We had talked about wanting tracks to run
> in contiguous time slots in the same room. Do we want folks to have to
> shuffle from room to room to follow a track?
I think it's desirable to stay in a room in general, but it shouldnt be a hard
rule, for example a track could switch rooms (to smaller or bigger) once, to
ease scheduling other events.
> 1) we have some "non-main-room" proposals that seem likely to attract a
> large crowd and probably warrant video (e.g. 532), while some excellent
> "main-room" proposals will almost certainly be small and not want or
> need video (e.g. 573). This is seems precisely wrong.
This also seems easy to solve. Put 532 in main and 573 not. Where is the
problem? :)
> What should we do?
> ------------------
> I think we should send an acceptance e-mail to all serious, sane,
> non-withdrawn proposals as soon as possible.
Yup.
> I said i want to block "nearly all the results" of the meeting-- i think
> our decisions about what proposals should be plenaries (i.e. having
> nothing scheduled opposite them) were reasonably done, and i don't see a
> reason to object to some of the in-track merge suggestions we came to.
>
> I'm very sorry about this, and sorry that my block here makes the talks
> deadline slip still further. Please tell me if i should withdraw my block.
I dont understand these two paragraphs. What block?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
