On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:11:54 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > On 06/04/2010 12:37 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote: > > We appreciate your interest and the time you invested in putting > > together your proposed event. Our talk selection committee felt > > your submission on its current form would not attract enough > > interest among the DebConf attendees and > > i'd rather say "we didn't pick it" than "no one is interested in your > proposal" (i know, it's not exactly what you said but someone reading it > sensitively might feel that way). For one thing, some accepted > proposals have a very small number of people interested, and some > rejected proposals probably have more. there were other criteria > besides "acceptance". > > > it will not merit > > your effort put forward in preparing the talk. > > i don't want to say this either. effort in preparing a talk is almost > always useful for the preparer if the talk is about something they care > about.
I agree with dkg's points, i was going to make similar. When I drafted the rejection email I thought about including a reason why it was rejected and then decided that just opens up all kinds of problems. I also looked at other examples of rejection letters and found that often that either the reasons were not given, or that very detailed feedback was given. I dont think we can do the latter so I would prefer to just be general and reject without reason. micah
pgpkNn9we0g45.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
