> Small correction: Yes, we did that last year. This year we rejected
> talks not accepted by the commitee, but left the possibility to
> propose a BoF instead.
This brings up th question: What was the composition of the
academic committee? What are the criteria for acceptance as a mem
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:15:05PM -0400, Micah Anderson wrote:
> This email reminds me that there is something that has nagged me at all the
> debconfs I have been: a tendency to conflate and morph BOFs into talks.
This has been discussed during the BOF (or was it a talk? :)) at the end
of debco
Hi!
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060602 05:47]:
> > This email reminds me that there is something that has nagged me at all the
> > debconfs I have been: a tendency to conflate and morph BOFs into talks.
> This seems to largely be an artifact of the DebConf organizing team's
> decision t
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:15:05PM -0400, Micah Anderson wrote:
> On 2006-05-30, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed, this leads me to think that scheduling a BOF/talk *before* the next
> > big KSP, if it happens at Debconf 7, would be a good thing to do.
> > I bet that we have
On 2006-05-30, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, this leads me to think that scheduling a BOF/talk *before* the next
> big KSP, if it happens at Debconf 7, would be a good thing to do.
>
> I bet that we have at least one person, in the Debian gang, who feels
> solid enough on t
