also sprach René Mayorga <rmayo...@debian.org.sv> [2015-02-15 01:07 +0100]: > I prefer the idea of two separate mails, but I will prefer to send the > CfP after the mail calling for registration.
That seems illogical to me, especially since nothing forces us to actually announce any talks. > If we aim to announce some "highlights" we may end using space for > talks in the first-come first-serve basis, … which we have done last year, and which is also an incentive for people to submit events earlier. I also thought it was a great way to get attention, might have incentivised some people to register, and generally gave a professional impression. > I'm also afraid of people canceling on talks that we highlighted > early, for scheduling purpose is great to know the speaker travel > details. This is a problem all conferences have to deal with, and it's quite normal and widely accepted to announce such a problem and provide an alternative. We are a somewhat special conference in that we are not going to publish a programme and then excite people to sign up and give us money. So maybe the order of CfP/registrations doesn't matter much. I've identified a few arguments for why I think we should push the CfP first (also: some of our sponsors are waiting for it…) and an official registrations e-mail later, but I have not read any arguments for why it's better to do it the other way around. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@debconf.org> @martinkrafft : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
