also sprach Anthony Towns [2014-09-22 05:13 +0200]:
> FWIW, I think most BoFs could actually be usefully backed by
> a "survey"-type paper -- ie, one that provided background info on
> the topic that would help someone who's interested, but not fully
> up to date, to participate usefully in the Bo
On 22 September 2014 02:53, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:20:12AM +0200]:
>> also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
>> > If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
>> > paper for a talk presentation, I think the aspects we are
>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
> > For bursaries, we had a simple interface allowing us to vote on each
> > participant with betwe
also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 18:55 +0200]:
> In the end, we ended up (as always) with enough content for 80 good
> talks. Some were better than others, of course. But I don't feel
> DebConf has to tighten its selection process due to accepting too many
> mediocre talks.
I wasn't suggesting
On 09/21/2014 10:15 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> I'll suggest something contrary here - I *don't* think we should even
> try. DebConf is *not* a typical academic conference where people are
> presenting state-of-the-art research to a very wide community who are
> otherwise disinterested. It's a m
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:53:15AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:20:12AM +0200]:
>> also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
>> > If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
>> > paper for a talk presentation, I think the aspe
martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:24:34AM +0200]:
> also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 03:51 +0200]:
> > We announced the first batch of accepted talks early on because
> > CfP response was coming in *very* slow. We feared we would end up
> > with ~80 slots and... ~20 talks. That woul
martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:20:12AM +0200]:
> also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
> > If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
> > paper for a talk presentation, I think the aspects we are
> > discussing would surely get better. But I don't kn
also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 03:51 +0200]:
> We announced the first batch of accepted talks early on because
> CfP response was coming in *very* slow. We feared we would end up
> with ~80 slots and... ~20 talks. That would clearly not be good.
Why not? 20 good talks would be much better th
also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
> If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
> paper for a talk presentation, I think the aspects we are
> discussing would surely get better. But I don't know how we can
> require people to prepare a paper.
For many subjects,
Michael Banck dijo [Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:03:29PM +0200]:
> > 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 shor
Anthony Towns dijo [Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 09:37:15PM +1000]:
> >> * 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 m
[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
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 h
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.
>
Several diverging comments below:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
>
>> * Publishing the list of accepted talks ahead and taking the time
>> to schedule seems to be a good idea. There are plenty of people
>>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
> For bursaries, we had a simple interface allowing us to vote on each
> participant with between -3 and +3 points. This would be trivial to
> do for events too, I guess.
>
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
Hi everybody,
This is a quick summary of how the talks team worked this year. This mail only
describes the talk selection process and scheduling. The scheduling of the
ad-hoc talks was done by Michael Banck so we'll let him comment on this regard.
Also, some personal comments from members of the
19 matches
Mail list logo
