Clint Adams dijo [Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:13:14AM +0000]: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Moray Allan wrote: > > Personally, I preferred the original Portland proposal of trying a > > more interleaved schedule -- for me, having blocks of three days for > > talks / hacking and BOFs just recreates the DebConf/DebCamp split the > > same as in other recent years, wasting the opportunity to experiment > > with how a different format works. If an interleaved format *doesn't* > > work as well, we wouldn't need to repeat it, but I was ready to > > believe that it might indeed be better -- we won't find out if we > > never try it. > > I concur.
I also concur with Moray's reasoning. However, again: if we allow people to schedule ad-hoc talks during the "quiet" days, even though the official pre-schedule might look as we intend it to, I believe the _real_ schedule will look approximately as it always has. So, yes, if we have to decide between three days of mostly-hackning (read: What was previously known as DebCamp) and three days of mostly-conference (read: What was previously known as DebConf), I think the point pushed by the local team about DebCamp not being a net benefit for Debian would defeat itself. Interleaving mostly-talks and mostly-hacking days would at least introduce a change that could in some way be evaluated. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
