Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team
On 18 September 2014 19:13, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]: >> * We must find a way to make submitters to make better talks >> descriptions. Bad or incomplete talks description made to waste >> a lot of time to both the talks team and attendees. > Yeah, I can see this very well. We should make sure that people put > at least as much time into making a submission as it takes us to > evaluate it. Would some sort of wiki-ish approach to talk proposals be possible? ie, let people propose talk ideas publically, with the ability for other people to help improve the description, add suggestions or correct typos before the talk review happens? Could let attendees provide an indication of interest in a topic in advance too? An alternative approach: just reject any talks with poor descriptions. Try to tell submitters early if their description isn't good enough -- maybe give them a short extension after the deadline to resubmit a better description even, but otherwise leave it up to the submitter. Worst case, they get rejected and can organise an ad-hoc session, can't they? > - Ask participants to provide links to previous events or videos, > allowing us to evaluate the quality of the speaker. Note that > I am not talking about witty audience magnets only, and I have > seen fantastic(ally prepared) speakers who presented in their > !first language and didn't have perfect slides. Does/can debconf offer any help to poor speakers with great ideas? Like, maybe hooking up a new speaker with an experience speaker to help draft/review slides, or something like that? Could have some volunteers available to help folks write good descriptions for their proposal too, maybe? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team
also sprach Anthony Towns [2014-09-19 13:37 +0200]: > Would some sort of wiki-ish approach to talk proposals be > possible? ie, let people propose talk ideas publically, with the > ability for other people to help improve the description, add > suggestions or correct typos before the talk review happens? Could > let attendees provide an indication of interest in a topic in > advance too? Could probably done with Summit, but I'd really prefer if noone else edited the description of what I am expected to present. But a comment feature would be nice. There is also a way to star talks you are interested in. > An alternative approach: just reject any talks with poor descriptions. > Try to tell submitters early if their description isn't good enough -- > maybe give them a short extension after the deadline to resubmit a > better description even, but otherwise leave it up to the submitter. Yeah, I favour this approach. > > - Ask participants to provide links to previous events or > > videos, allowing us to evaluate the quality of the speaker. > > Note that I am not talking about witty audience magnets only, > > and I have seen fantastic(ally prepared) speakers who > > presented in their !first language and didn't have perfect > > slides. > > Does/can debconf offer any help to poor speakers with great ideas? > Like, maybe hooking up a new speaker with an experience speaker to > help draft/review slides, or something like that? Could have some > volunteers available to help folks write good descriptions for their > proposal too, maybe? I nominate Anthony Towns. I've seen him speak well and he seems eager to help! ;) -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : DebConf orga team `. `'` `- DebConf14: Portland, OR, USA: http://debconf14.debconf.org DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org 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
Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team
[adding the talks team (back) to the CC list] On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:49:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Anthony Towns [2014-09-19 13:37 +0200]: > > An alternative approach: just reject any talks with poor descriptions. > > Try to tell submitters early if their description isn't good enough -- > > maybe give them a short extension after the deadline to resubmit a > > better description even, but otherwise leave it up to the submitter. > > Yeah, I favour this approach. Alternatively, the talks team could take a quick look at 1/2 (they accepted a couple of talks this year at around that time, which I found great, so were looking already) and maybe 3/4 into the CfP and give some feedback to submissions with bad descriptions, warning them that they will be rejected if the description is not improved by the end of the CfP. Hrm, in re-reading AJ's proposal, that's probably what he meant with "Try to tell submitters early"... Letting people resubmit with a better description for 1-2 weeks after the CfP has ended is still a good idea and could be done in addition IMO. Michael ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
