Hi,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Tiago Bortoletto Vaz writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We from talks team were informally suggested by .ch locals to consider lunch
> > time from 12:30 to 14:30. We'd like to confirm with orga people that it's
> > logisti
Hi
Tiago Bortoletto Vaz writes:
> Hi,
>
> We from talks team were informally suggested by .ch locals to consider lunch
> time from 12:30 to 14:30. We'd like to confirm with orga people that it's
> logistically ok. In that case we'll have talks scheduled from 9:30 to 12:30
> and
> from 14:30 to
Hi,
We from talks team were informally suggested by .ch locals to consider lunch
time from 12:30 to 14:30. We'd like to confirm with orga people that it's
logistically ok. In that case we'll have talks scheduled from 9:30 to 12:30 and
from 14:30 to 18:30. Informal meetings can be schedule after th
Hi folks--
the talks team has just clarified and normalized the names of the rooms
where the talks wil be held. The two rooms that have video-team
coverage are:
* Auditorium
* Round Room
The third talks room (see recent debconf-discuss announcement) is:
* Meeting room
The names have been c
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:42:11AM +0200]:
>
> > While at it, we should also encourage people to rate the events they
> > attended to, in order to give feedback to the authors/presenters.
>
> We HAVE a feedback system.
> We turn it on each DebConf.
>
> Attendees are lazy.
>
> I
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:27:22PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Andreas Tille dijo [Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:15:00AM +0200]:
> > At some point in time (IMHO when DC 9 was running) there was a
> > suggestion to publish the rating numbers in some way. I'd be in favour
> > of this (but I'm not so terri
> While at it, we should also encourage people to rate the events they
> attended to, in order to give feedback to the authors/presenters.
We HAVE a feedback system.
We turn it on each DebConf.
Attendees are lazy.
If you get them to use it, great.
--
bye, Joerg
I think Smithers picked me beca
Andreas Tille dijo [Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:15:00AM +0200]:
> At some point in time (IMHO when DC 9 was running) there was a
> suggestion to publish the rating numbers in some way. I'd be in favour
> of this (but I'm not so terribly keen on it that I would volunteer to
> implement it :-)).
Humm,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> No, of course! We currently "opened" two rooms, both of which will
> be recorded/streamed. I put all of the BoFs in the second room, as I
> was told it's better suited, but it does not mean they are less
> important or that they won't have vide
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 07:13:09PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> Agreed. Now, if getting "pre-scheduled" is the only benefit of having
> a talks selection team, we could think about dropping the team and
> just scheduling everything. After all, a relatively large group of us
> rated the talks and
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 06:53:01PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > The event
> > Measuring Team Performance (712)
> > is also very strongly connected to Blends (the effort was actually
> > invented to see how a Blend works but it will be useful for other teams
> > inside Debian.
>
> humm, this w
Daniel Kahn Gillmor dijo [Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:53:11AM -0400]:
> > • We are scheduling so far on two rooms only. We can add a BoF room if
> > needed, but it will not have video coverage, and we should only open
> > it if the schedule gets too full before the confernce.
>
> last year, we had
Hi,
We will be holding a talks team meeting this next Thursday. The topics
to cover are:
• Tracks
• Scheduling
• Proceedings
Oh, and if you signed up to be part of the Scheduling team¹, be
present as well.
See you there!
¹ http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Teams#Scheduling
__
Andreas Tille dijo [Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:34:20AM +0200]:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 04:48:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > ‣ Blends — Only one talk, although there is at least one other that
>
> You are probably refering to
> Blending Debian (711)
> But I would also see the fol
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 04:48:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> ‣ Blends — Only one talk, although there is at least one other that
You are probably refering to
Blending Debian (711)
But I would also see the following events (not "lectures") in this field
Debian Science Roundtable
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:53:11AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/18/2011 05:48 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> last year, we had two rooms with video team coverage, with a third,
> un-videoed room. Given that some BoFs are quite clear that they want
> v-t coverage, I don't think that dividing
On 06/18/2011 05:48 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ok, so I spent some time scheduling the top-rated talks today, and we
> have a preliminary schedule to start working with. Yay!
Thank you, Gunnar!
> • We are scheduling so far on two rooms only. We can add a BoF room if
> needed, but it will not have
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:48:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> So, we have two very short tracks, and two tracks that cannot be
> fitted in the schedule I'd set for them (4hr - A full
> afternoon-evening session).
How about setting the long tracks up on either two afternoons or
morning+afternoon
Ok, so I spent some time scheduling the top-rated talks today, and we
have a preliminary schedule to start working with. Yay!
Now, the schedule is preliminary if you are very optimist. Some points
we still have to go through, and that will surely change things all
around. So, with no particular or
Norman Garcia Aguilar dijo [Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:51:37AM -0600]:
> > talks@ - gwolf will hold down this alias for now, until the rest of
> > the team is added. (has this replaced the old committee@ alias?)
>
> Im in scheduling team, it is the same? :)
I'm currently assembling the talks team -
Richard Darst dijo [Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 06:35:26PM -0400]:
> Hi,
>
> These people are currently listed under the talks team:
> (…)
> We need some people (doesn't have to be from this list) to lead the
> team right now mainly getting a call for papers out, along with
> deciding any changes which s
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 06:35:26PM -0400, Richard Darst wrote:
> We need some people (doesn't have to be from this list) to lead the
> team right now mainly getting a call for papers out, along with
> deciding any changes which should be done this year. If someone wants
Here is a useful wiki pag
Hi,
These people are currently listed under the talks team:
- Joerg Jaspert
- Gunnar Wolf
- Amaya Rodrigo (volunteering)
- Luciano Bello
- Andreas Tille
- Ferdinand Thommes (volunteer)
- Vladimir Atanackovic (volunteer)
We need some people (doesn't have to be from this list) to lead the
t
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:41:58PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:32:45PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:52:14PM -0400, micah wrote:
> > >
> > > So there were four people who signed up late to give talks, and had also
> > > requested food/board s
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> IIRC we _had_ implemented this idea for DC5 or DC6 (which ran using
> a different CMS - One written by me, and scratched since. Don
> Armstrong made the subsystem for voting for talks. But no, it's not
> adapted for Penta... and I doubt we have time to come
Richard Darst dijo [Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 02:59:51AM -0400]:
> > (disclaimer: I was not in the talks committee this year, I was just in the
> > scheduling hell team. I was in the talks committee 2 years ago.)
>
> I'd be interested in hearing what made scheduling so hard last year.
> (room size vs
Jimmy Kaplowitz dijo [Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:40:27PM -0400]:
> > who or what are the "on-the-ground schedulers"? How are they expected
> > to decide things? Are these people (or machines?) up for accepting the
> > possible workload we're setting up here?
>
> I think the idea is people on site w
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 07:45:44PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> (disclaimer: I was not in the talks committee this year, I was just in the
> scheduling hell team. I was in the talks committee 2 years ago.)
I'd be interested in hearing what made scheduling so hard last year.
(room size vs talk at
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:29:20PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I haven't heard any objections to this plan. I've updated
>
> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/TalkDecisionEmails
debconf-data/penta/dc10/event-mail-2.py is ready to go[0]. Let me know
if there are any changes not l
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> If the talk was accepted, I am ok with that if it fits in our budget, that
> will be more clear after 10th June.
> So what about: we would like to give you sponsored food and bed but we can not
> tell you for sure until the 11-12th June when w
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:32:45PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:52:14PM -0400, micah wrote:
> >
> > So there were four people who signed up late to give talks, and had also
> > requested food/board sponsorship. They are currently scheduled to not
> > receive this sponsor
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:52:14PM -0400, micah wrote:
>
> So there were four people who signed up late to give talks, and had also
> requested food/board sponsorship. They are currently scheduled to not
> receive this sponsorship due to requesting it past the deadline. This
> may be considered un
Hi,
On Freitag, 4. Juni 2010, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > What do other talks-team people think? Should we ask for reconsideration
> > of these, or is it fine that they don't get it?
I think people giving talks should at least get free food, esp. if I read that
we asked for submissions after the dead
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, micah wrote:
>
> So there were four people who signed up late to give talks, and had also
> requested food/board sponsorship. They are currently scheduled to not
> receive this sponsorship due to requesting it past the deadline. This
> may be considered unfortunate
So there were four people who signed up late to give talks, and had also
requested food/board sponsorship. They are currently scheduled to not
receive this sponsorship due to requesting it past the deadline. This
may be considered unfortunate for a couple of reasons: a. we actively
solicited and e
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:11:54 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 06/04/2010 12:37 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> > We appreciate your interest and the time you invested in putting
> > together your proposed event. Our talk selection committee felt
> > your submission on its current form would not a
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
> > On 06/03/2010 04:00 PM, micah anderson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:27:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <
> d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> >>> On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, mica
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 06/04/2010 12:37 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote:
>> We hope this doesn't discourage you from attending Debconf, in
>> fact there will be opportunities for ad-hoc events to occur, if
>> you should wish to still put it on (if you decide to d
On 06/04/2010 12:37 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> We appreciate your interest and the time you invested in putting
> together your proposed event. Our talk selection committee felt
> your submission on its current form would not attract enough
> interest among the DebConf attendees and
i'd rather say
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 04:00 PM, micah anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:27:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote:
2. send a reject notice to the bottom 20 that did not make the c
On 06/03/2010 03:27 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote:
>> I would propose that the best way forward, at this point, taking into
>> considerations all the discussions here and on IRC would be this:
>>
>> 1. send an acceptance to all the currently 'accepted
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:40:12PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Thanks for writing that up. i'm fine with the current text on that page:
[...]
> I'd be fine with moving forward with this plan if there are no objections.
I don't have any strong opinion on whether or not we move forward this
On 06/03/2010 04:00 PM, micah anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:27:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
>> On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote:
>>> 2. send a reject notice to the bottom 20 that did not make the cut due
>>> to the ratings
>>
>> could you draft the rejection notic
I agree on the huge-ness of emails, its hard for me to keep up :).
The way I see it would be to do it like this, like was Ana was saying
but perhaps in softer language ;)
- "accept" the ones we marked as accepted last night, those will go in
the main rooms as planned
- instead of "rejecti
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:45:02PM -0400, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> These emails are *huge* and the entry cost of reading them slows down
> participation from other people.
>
> After reading them, I feel dkg wants to make the talk selection less
> strict and more inclusive. I second that.
>
> Ana cou
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:59:50PM -0400, micah anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:14:41 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>
> We definitely need to reserve space for last-minute things, however even
> if we go ahead and accept the 26 remaining talks that are in this weird
> state, we still have ov
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:27:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> Hi Micah--
>
> Thanks, i think your mail describes what happened and why we're in a
> tough/confused state right now.
>
> I also like your proposal, though i have two outstanding questions about
> it before i feel like going ahead
Hi,
I'll not get involved with most of the substance of this discussion since I
trust you all to do something reasonable and I need to mostly refocus my
energies toward other DebConf and non-DebConf matters. A couple of minor
responses:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:27:16PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmo
These emails are *huge* and the entry cost of reading them slows down
participation from other people.
After reading them, I feel dkg wants to make the talk selection less
strict and more inclusive. I second that.
Ana countered with ideas about making it even more strict than what
the current tal
On 06/03/2010 03:27 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I also like your proposal, though i have two outstanding questions about
> it before i feel like going ahead with it in full:
ugh. This is certainly not my decision to make, and i did not mean to
imply that it was. The above should read "...be
Hi Micah--
Thanks, i think your mail describes what happened and why we're in a
tough/confused state right now.
I also like your proposal, though i have two outstanding questions about
it before i feel like going ahead with it in full:
On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote:
> I would prop
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:14:41 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > What we did
> > ---
> > We tried to decide which talks would be scheduled for the two main rooms
> > ("interschool" and "davis") during daytime hours, addressing it as a
> > challenge to "cut" proposals based on (a) the ratings in
I've helped organized a bunch of conferences and selection processes
and one thing that is clear is that the process never is anywhere
close to where you'd like to be, largely because you are basically
learning how to do it while you are doing it. So you only really know
how to do it once
On 06/03/2010 01:42 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> I've helped organized a bunch of conferences and selection processes and
> one thing that is clear is that the process never is anywhere close to
> where you'd like to be, largely because you are basically learning how
> to do it while you ar
Hi again,
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 01:09:21PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 09:14 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:47:52AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >> In writing up the mail for the "not accepted for scheduling" proposals,
> >> it became apparen
Hi Ana--
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
On 06/03/2010 09:14 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:47:52AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> In writing up the mail for the "not accepted for scheduling" proposals,
>> it became apparent that we would encourage the authors of t
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:42:38AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion about what i meant by "block" above. I meant:
>
> * i'm requesting that people should not act on the action items we
> produced in the meeting, including external notification.
>
> * "set my block as
On 06/03/2010 03:47 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Ever write a bunch of code to solve a problem, get to the end of it, and
> then realize there was a much better way you should have done it?
>
> The dc10 talks team had a long meeting tonight [0], which i'm now pretty
> convinced we did the Wron
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:14:41PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> Finally, my analysis here is mixed with my opinion personal and experience of
> previous years, so do not take it as something that tries to be subjetive.
s/subjetive/objective/
After sending the email found a good example of the la
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 03:47:52AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> Ever write a bunch of code to solve a problem, get to the end of it, and
> then realize there was a much better way you should have done it?
>
> The dc10 talks team had a long meeting tonight [0], which i'm now pretty
Hi,
thanks for the write-up and your work on talks selections! You seem to be
doing a great job! :-)
3 small comments and 1 question below.
On Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 0) we have both "main-room" and "non-main-room" proposals that were
> desired to be part of trac
Hi debconf folks--
Ever write a bunch of code to solve a problem, get to the end of it, and
then realize there was a much better way you should have done it?
The dc10 talks team had a long meeting tonight [0], which i'm now pretty
convinced we did the Wrong Way, thanks mainly to my so-called
"lea
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:38:43PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 10:07 PM, Richard Darst wrote:
> > One of the things we wanted to use to outreach to the Columbia
> > community was a list of talks - basically, announcing a conference and
> > linking to some sample talks is bette
Hey folks--
as previous mails from micah and pablo pointed out, we are having our
talks team "final cut" meeting today (wednesday, 2nd June) at 7pm NYC
time (23:00 UTC).
Like last week, we'll be meeting on #debconf-team, and moving to
#debconf-talks if we find we're disturbing folks on #debconf-t
On 06/01/2010 10:07 PM, Richard Darst wrote:
> One of the things we wanted to use to outreach to the Columbia
> community was a list of talks - basically, announcing a conference and
> linking to some sample talks is better than just saying "there will be
> talks". So one of the things that some l
hey,
One of the things we wanted to use to outreach to the Columbia
community was a list of talks - basically, announcing a conference and
linking to some sample talks is better than just saying "there will be
talks". So one of the things that some local people were wanting was
a talks list in so
micah anderson dijo [Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:26:19AM -0400]:
> It could be because the last meeting was at a bad time for people
> outside of the east coast of the US, but the non-localteam people that
> attended that meeting was the sleepless azeem, and gwolf for a few
> minutes in the beginning.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:00:23AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > Another topic I'd probably like to see explained and discussed is the
> > status
> > quo of the squeeze release. It's kind of the main topic of Debian ;)
> hrm. The only release team-ish talk i see is
>
> https://penta.de
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 01:07:35 -0400, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
> > Hi debconf people--
> >
> > This is a reminder that the dc10 talks team is meeting today on IRC (and
> > local folks in person as well) at 23:00 UTC (7pm NYC time).
> >
> >
On 06/01/2010 10:38 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> > Another advantage [to having plenaries] might be to communicate specific
>> > concerns to the
>> > broader group, for example if we have a wrap-up session with reportbacks
>> > from track co
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> One potential advantage of having plenary talks might be a better sense
> of cohesion for attendees.
>
> However, we already have the day trip and the formal dinner as events
> which i expect will do some of that. And of course, no one
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> Hi debconf people--
>
> This is a reminder that the dc10 talks team is meeting today on IRC (and
> local folks in person as well) at 23:00 UTC (7pm NYC time).
>
> We'll meet on #debconf-team -- if it is too noisy there or we're
> distu
Andreas Tille dijo [Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:27:26PM +0200]:
> Hint: As a scheduler in two previous DebConfs I like to stress this
> point of Holger especially because I'm guilty for violating this rule.
> It should be clear to the person who is doing this job that it will
> be under pressure of con
micah anderson dijo [Fri, May 28, 2010 at 03:25:31PM -0400]:
> > Your e-mail referred a couple times to a "FLOSS track", but i think
> > there is no current FLOSS track, according to [0]. Do you mean the
> > Community Outreach track? Or do you mean more broadly talks that are
> > more about FLOSS
micah dijo [Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:33:59PM -0400]:
> (...)
> Personally, I think Debconf can both get a bit boring if the 'relevance'
> is applied too strictly, and too de-focused if it is applied to
> broadly. To make a great conference there should be a balance, and I
> feel like right now it is
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 08:05:07PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 03:58:41PM -0400, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> > I remember Ana telling me on IRC something on the line "talks that
> > will make nobody go to a competing talk in a parallel session". That's
> > a very strong criteria w
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 03:58:41PM -0400, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> I remember Ana telling me on IRC something on the line "talks that
> will make nobody go to a competing talk in a parallel session". That's
> a very strong criteria which /melikes.
Does such a talk exist?
_
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> What do you think the criteria should be? Or would you prefer no
>> plenaries at all?
>
> I don't think I can answer this because I'm not yet sure what the
> point of the
On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:50:27 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> Your e-mail referred a couple times to a "FLOSS track", but i think
> there is no current FLOSS track, according to [0]. Do you mean the
> Community Outreach track? Or do you mean more broadly talks that are
> more about FLOSS t
Hi micah--
Thanks for bringing this up!
On 05/28/2010 01:33 PM, micah wrote:
> Personally, I think Debconf can both get a bit boring if the 'relevance'
> is applied too strictly, and too de-focused if it is applied to
> broadly. To make a great conference there should be a balance, and I
> feel l
Hi all,
At our recent talks team meeting we discussed the talks rating criteria
(Relevance, Actuality and Acceptance[0]), and issues that people had
with them. I brought up the 'relevance' rating criteria as something
that I had some issues with, and I promised at the meeting I would bring
it up
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:41:27AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Do you see any advantages to having plenaries? Any disadvantages?
The only advantage I see for myself is the same as for any talk I
would wish to attend if it does not conflict with any other talk I
would also wish to attend.
On 05/27/2010 11:01 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> What do you think the criteria should be? Or would you prefer no
>> plenaries at all?
>
> I don't think I can answer this because I'm not yet sure what the
> point of them is.
One
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> What do you think the criteria should be? Or would you prefer no
> plenaries at all?
I don't think I can answer this because I'm not yet sure what the
point of them is.
___
Debconf-t
On 05/27/2010 08:47 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:01:20AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> There was quite a bit of discussion about having a select few events
>> scheduled with no other concurrent events.
>
> What are the criteria for these "select few"?
I would assu
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:38:20AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > Is anyone interested in acting as Scheduler? Does anyone with
> > experience from scheduling past debconfs have advice to offer?
>
> do not schedule anything without givi
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:01:20AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> There was quite a bit of discussion about having a select few events
> scheduled with no other concurrent events. We are calling these
> "Plenaries" for the moment. If we decide we want to have them, we might
> run into a bi
Moin,
On Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Is anyone interested in acting as Scheduler? Does anyone with
> experience from scheduling past debconfs have advice to offer?
do not schedule anything without giving at least 24h "warning" in advance.
never.
(and to repeat: I'm
The talks team had a meeting on #debconf-team this evening. Thanks to
everyone who showed up.
meetbot summary (and links to logs) are here:
http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2010/debconf-team.2010-05-26-23.07.html
I wanted to raise two distinct issues with the broader debconf team from
ou
Hi debconf people--
This is a reminder that the dc10 talks team is meeting today on IRC (and
local folks in person as well) at 23:00 UTC (7pm NYC time).
We'll meet on #debconf-team -- if it is too noisy there or we're
disturbing other organizers who don't want to hear about talks, we can
move the
hey debconf folks--
This is my followup report on the talks team status for debconf 10.
The talks review and acceptance process is late, but we're working on
it. By this coming Wednesday, we expect to have each submission
reviewed by at least two people, hopefully more.
Those who are local will
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:31:56PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> I'm hoping to give a reportback from the talks team later this weekend,
> as i offered in the meeting today. I also want to reiterate a call for
> help if anyone else wants to review talks. If you can even review a
> dozen
hey folks--
I'm hoping to give a reportback from the talks team later this weekend,
as i offered in the meeting today. I also want to reiterate a call for
help if anyone else wants to review talks. If you can even review a
dozen talks, please reply here and we'll try to get you reviewer privs.
On Tue, 4 May 2010 13:23:59 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> > On 05/03/2010 05:22 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >> The key idea of the retreat is for local people to get together to be
> >> able to talk about the apps and
On Tue, 4 May 2010 17:12:15 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> > wrote:
> >> On 05/03/2010 05:22 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >>> The key idea of the retreat is for local peo
On May 4, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Pablo Duboue wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
>> On 05/03/2010 05:22 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> The key idea of the retreat is for local people to get together to
>>> be
>>> able to talk about the apps and then we'll e
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 05:22 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> The key idea of the retreat is for local people to get together to be
>> able to talk about the apps and then we'll enter our ratings into
>> penta. Then all who want to contribut
On May 3, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 05:22 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> The key idea of the retreat is for local people to get together to be
>> able to talk about the apps and then we'll enter our ratings into
>> penta. Then all who want to contribute o
On 05/03/2010 05:53 PM, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> That's quite easy to do; I have an email from Joerg Jaspert to last year's
> talks team (which I was on) explaining how the software works
If this could be posted publicly someplace (a web page?) that'd be
great! Is there any reason this needs to b
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:35:08PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> If we do this all via penta, i'm going to need a bit of training or
> documentation (and maybe some elevated privileges?) to know how to
> indicate my preferences in penta itself.
That's quite easy to do; I have an email from J
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
