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, 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
32 matches
Mail list logo
