Hi Steve, et al. On 23/04/14 18:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I asked this question on IRC the other day, but now that we have a talks > team, I can ask you all directly for your thoughts. I'm expecting to get > conference registration opened today, and ideally the "call for papers" > would follow shortly thereafter. Do you want to provide any guidance around > tracks as part of the CfP, or do you want the tracks to be organized only > after you see what papers people submit? (Of course, even if we suggested > some tracks in the CfP, there would be room for adding other tracks later, > or accepting papers that don't fit the pre-defined tracks.) I have been away from this task for a while, so I don't know what was done in the last few years. Proposing tracks seems like a good way to steer the conference into some areas, and maybe even get more talks, as people might be more tempted to send a proposal if the topic has been already suggested. I also find that RichiH's comment on IRC is a good compromise: [18:15:49] <RichiH> [18:16:41] harmoney: from a speaker's PoV, i prefer "these are our topics, please submit" to "these are the tracks; make sure you fit" The downside to this is getting the topics/tracks list done in time for the CfP... > And more broadly, does the talks team want to own sending the CfP itself? > I'm happy to handle the summit development side of things and leave the CfP > to someone else. I don't mind either way. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
