Hi Ana-- Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
On 06/03/2010 09:14 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:47:52AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> In writing up the mail for the "not accepted for scheduling" proposals, >> it became apparent that we would encourage the authors of those >> proposals to schedule their proposal in some other room -- it became >> apparent that 414 Schapiro seems a likely candidate, and we might even >> be able to get other classrooms. > > Here is the problem we hit on previous years and lead in the creation > of the infamous "unofficial" track: > we reject your talk but you can do it "unofficially". There is not > difference with the "official" talks. At least not with the ones > schedules from the beginning (difference here: video recording) My understanding was that we were aiming to avoid the "official" vs. "unofficial" designations. Also, the wording people came up with for the "reject" mails (see the history of [0]) is not terribly reject-y. I believe that the jist of the discussion was that talks not accepted today could just be scheduled in other rooms/empty slots later. And we certainly have empty slots, given the 3 rooms available. > we should not use more > than 2 rooms and in some cases just 3. with three rooms, we have more than enough slots to accomodate every proposal and still have space left (esp. considering that not every proposal will pan out in a talk). In what cases should we have 3 rooms, and in what cases should we have 2 ? > As mentioned, we should not do talk selection and scheduling (room talk > allocation) at the same time. Firstly, we just should select the talks we > see fit and seem good for Debian and reject all that does not fall in this > category. Then we worry at how use the resources we have. this sounds like "official"/"unofficial" to me, which i thought we were trying to avoid. I don't mind it myself, though. > We have got very few submissions this year as i understand your mail, many talks from last year were submitted and scheduled at the last minute. as of today in penta, last year shows a total of 163 proposals total (10 undecided, 135 accepted, 18 rejected). this hear has 120 proposals, and the last-minute or on-site proposals have not come in yet. Is it really that much fewer? > Answering to "What should we do?" my suggestion: > - Accept 65-72 talks we believe are good for debconf. Send accept/reject > email. Publish list of accepted talks without scheduling. I am fine with this suggestion, though we might want to adjust the wording of the acceptance e-mail, since it implies all accepted talks will be in a large room. > To rejected > talks add we are studying the possibility of a extra unconference talk that > does not need to be necessarily recorded and still to be decided. This is vague enough that i would be more annoyed to receive it as a submitter than i would be to receive an "unofficial" or "non-main" mail. It also doesn't match the criteria we thought we were using when we made the current cut in penta. While i'm personally OK with using the cut decision we made against this idea, i'd want to make sure other folks who contributed to the decision don't feel like the rug was pulled out from under them. > - Keep allowing late submissions in penta. yes. > - Gather talks requirement and schedule the accepted talks in the 2 main > rooms. why not schedule some of the smaller, non-video-needing accepted talks for the 3rd (smaller) room? > - In some moment, maybe 1 week before debconf look at the late submissions, > see if something late minute is worthwhile to be added to the main set of > track. > Usually this is interesting debian stuff that would benefit of being record. > Look at the what there is left and study how to organize the unconference > track in a 3rd room. extrasuggestion: This does not need to be a schedule > organized in penta. yes, though i'd like to see it kept in penta so future organizers can see what actually happened. > This suggestion is assuming we only have video in 2 main talks, we tried to > put there the best material and we still allow and encourage last minute > talks without stress to video team because it is not recorded, and no stress > for the scheduler team because they do not need to update penta every 2 hours. However, we did not make the current cut based on who should get video :( we based it mainly on the relative scores in pentabarf ratings, and there is no "should get video" axis to score on. There are some incredibly relevant, accepted, "actualized" proposals that probably just don't need or even want video. There are some proposals that might reasonably expect video, even if they didn't have a terribly high penta rating. If those events are going to happen at DebConf anyway (Conference or Unconference, or whatever we're calling the distinction), and we have the capacity to cover them, we should cover them. > Finally, I have not seen any reference in the logs to what happens with > the DebianDay that must be the first day in the "main" room after the opening. > We discussed this here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/debconf-team@lists.debconf.org/msg03957.html you're right, we have totally missed Debian Day in this session. :( Unfortunately, the discussion on the mailing list got sidetracked by the lack of a DebianDay page on the wiki, and didn't get much discussion about what should actually go into debian day. Thanks for the discussion, --dkg [0] http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/TalkDecisionEmails
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
