On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:13:14AM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > 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.
Are you both saying we should go with Steve's original suggestion: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131001.175026.0a50b91b.en.html ? If not can you make a concrete proposal that provides what you think should happen? J. -- Hats off to the insane. | .''`. Debian GNU/Linux Developer | : :' : Happy to accept PGP signed | `. `' or encrypted mail - RSA | `- key on the keyservers. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
