Hi, below are my own opinions, I am not speaking for the content team as a whole.
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:21:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Four bits of feedback: > > First, are we sure we want to invite talks and leave it up entirely > to the presenter, whether they can be broadcast by video? Shouldn't > it be much more that we require permission to broadcast by video all > presentations (not necessarily debates or ad-hoc stuff) and will > make exceptions only if given a good reason? I tend to agree with you here. Remote participation is a very important part and we should make it clear that livestream and recordings are absolutely supposed to be the default. > Second, do you see any way to move the deadline earlier, e.g. end of > April? > > Not only would this help with press releases and attract attention. > It also helps people to know a vague schedule before registering. > Not all of us can just go to DebConf for its entire duration without > knowing what will be on offer when. Last year we accepted quite a few talks early, and I think we should do this again. So I think we should also mention this in the CfP, like "we plain to accept a first round talks by April 15th" or whatever date we come up with. Depending on how many submissions we get, we could even do a second round, filling up 50-70% of the slots. > More importantly, however, while some of us will go to DebConf > anyway whether getting a proposal accepted or not, many will only be > able to go if their proposal is accepted e.g. because only then can > they get paid leave and funding. Therefore, it'd be necessary to > know of acceptance well before the reconfirmation deadline, which > I don't think is sensibly possible when the submissions deadline is > two weeks before the reconfirmation deadline. See above, would that help in that regard? OTOH, I think we should *not* solicit feedback like "I need to know by foo whether my talk gets accepted for travel planning reasons", to not put more pressure on us. > Third, are you still considering making some early decisions > including but not limited to explicitly invited speakers? Again, > it'd be useful to be able to advertise the conference with some > concrete events, and it could drive up quality if early submissions > are encouraged when there's a chance to get them accepted early. If > so, then I suggest to add something relevant to the announcement. My impressions was that we would treat invited speakers differently and select them earlier. Though I think it would be wise to keep 1-2 slots open for last-minute "deals" like we had with the Linus Q&A last year (even though some people didn't like its content). > Finally, you are explicitly inviting "other types of events" > including workshops etc., which is awesome. But a workshop probably > won't fit in a 45 minute slot, at least not if the goal is to engage > participants. Hrm, good point. Michael _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
