On 15 Feb 2015, at 09:00, martin f krafft <madd...@debconf.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
Usually we were sending the two announces in parallel. (but I don’t
remember discussions, so maybe it was only for technical reason)
>> 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.
No, it is not true. Last year, until few days before closing first CfP, we
had very few proposed talks. I remember that I was actively
encouraging “institutional” entities to give a talk. But at first CfP
deadline we had already to much talks (BTW I think we had also
fewer slots).
BTW we have few problems with early proposal of talks (and IMHO also
for sprint):
- DPL election (OK, we can reserve a DPL talk anyway)
- release: I think it is difficult to release team, and also other teams, to
talk about (and to do sprint about) future releases/transitions/
changes/etc. before we do a release.
Note: We can leave some spaces for these talks, but OTOH few of these
talks are also some of the highlight talk.
The good part: we, probably, will be not in freeze during DebConf.
For these contingencies, I recommend content team not to push to much on
the “first-served” basis, for this year, but only to start testing it for DC16.
ciao
cate
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
