Hi Micah-- Thanks, i think your mail describes what happened and why we're in a tough/confused state right now.
I also like your proposal, though i have two outstanding questions about
it before i feel like going ahead with it in full:
On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote:
> I would propose that the best way forward, at this point, taking into
> considerations all the discussions here and on IRC would be this:
>
> 1. send an acceptance to all the currently 'accepted' talks in penta, we
> don't bother including the 'two main rooms' details. it was accepted,
> implementation details come later
>
> 2. send a reject notice to the bottom 20 that did not make the cut due
> to the ratings
could you draft the rejection notice you're proposing someplace?
> 3. accept in penta and send an acceptance email to the middle third that
> we had such a hard time deciding on last night, this email would be no
> different than #1
>
> 4. we schedule Schipiro (414) along with the two main rooms
>
> Doing this will result in plenty of room for last-minute space for
> talks. Determining what to do with talks that were actually rejected
> that are later re-submitted as last-minute would be up to the on the
> ground schedulers.
who or what are the "on-the-ground schedulers"? How are they expected
to decide things? Are these people (or machines?) up for accepting the
possible workload we're setting up here?
> Schedulers will have two unknown variables: if a talk wants V-T
> coverage, and how many people might want to attend any particular
> talk. These are the things that will make scheduling difficult, if we
> don't know them in advance. If its at all possible to add something to
> penta and request that accepted talks indicate, then we should to help
> the scheduling.
Concretely, here's the info that it seems would be useful to gather:
I'd say that we have v-t coverage options that the submitter or
presenter should be able to choose:
* need (e.g. remote participants)
* want
* don't care
* do not want
I think it might also be nice to ask the submitter/presenter to estimate:
* how many attendees do you expect?
* maximum number of attendees you would be willing to accomodate
(leaving these blank means "don't know" in the first case and infinity
in the second)
If there was a way for attendees to indicate "i'd like to attend this
talk", that might also help the schedulers decide which rooms are
appropriate.
What do other folks think?
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
