Reply in-line :-
On 21/03/2018, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> OK keep them closed. But at least at the bottom of
> https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/new/
> mention (before he hits the submit button) that
>
> "Your proposal will be held for review and only will be made public if
> approved."
>
Actu
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> On 20.03.2018 23:07, Carl Karsten wrote:
>
>> Can someone elaborate on why
>> "unfortunately means rejecting some."
>> is a reason to keep anything about this secret?
>
> Because if we make public the rejection, less people will submit ta
OK keep them closed. But at least at the bottom of
https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/new/
mention (before he hits the submit button) that
"Your proposal will be held for review and only will be made public if
approved."
Else it might take weeks for him to find that his e.g.,
https://debconf18.d
On 20.03.2018 23:07, Carl Karsten wrote:
> Can someone elaborate on why
> "unfortunately means rejecting some."
> is a reason to keep anything about this secret?
Because if we make public the rejection, less people will submit talks.
Debian (and Free Software) communities suffer of the impostor
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:42:52PM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> But then he is also too embarrassed to rally support for his proposals
> by posting them to debconf-discuss etc. instead of waiting for them to
> first be approved.
rallying for support on debconf-discuss and twitter and whatnot t
Reply at bottom :-
On 21/03/2018, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> "CK" == Carl Karsten writes:
>>> You can see last year's schedule¹
>
> All that looks good. But I am worried about what we don't see: the
> rejected items.
>
> Maybe in the future have a radio
> ( ) Only make my proposal public if
> "CK" == Carl Karsten writes:
>> You can see last year's schedule¹
All that looks good. But I am worried about what we don't see: the
rejected items.
Maybe in the future have a radio
( ) Only make my proposal public if it is approved.
( ) Make my proposal public now, even though it hasn't g
On 21/03/2018, Carl Karsten wrote:
>
> I have always wondered about this.
>
> I am not arguing for or against anything, just trying to understand,
> and I suspect help others understand too.
>
> Can someone elaborate on why
> "unfortunately means rejecting some."
> is a reason to keep anything
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I feel that as recurring Content Lead, I should join and answer this
> thread, even if it has been mostly answered.
>
> Holger Levsen dijo [Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:36:46PM +]:
>> > It seems talk/event proposals go into a black box until app
I feel that as recurring Content Lead, I should join and answer this
thread, even if it has been mostly answered.
Holger Levsen dijo [Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:36:46PM +]:
> > It seems talk/event proposals go into a black box until approved
> > by a "secret" committee, or discarded.
>
> the me
Not only lightning talks, but we have unconferences that everyone can sign
up on site.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 at 21:37 Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:22:46PM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > It seems talk/event proposals go into a black box until approved by a
> "secret"
> > com
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:22:46PM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> It seems talk/event proposals go into a black box until approved by a "secret"
> committee, or discarded.
the members of the content team are public, there is not secret
committee.
> In fact
> https://debconf18.debconf.org/cfp/
It seems talk/event proposals go into a black box until approved by a "secret"
committee, or discarded.
In fact
https://debconf18.debconf.org/cfp/
doesn't mention that proposals are secret, which is quite different than
one would expect with Debian, and
https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/new/
13 matches
Mail list logo
