On 06/04/2013 10:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
(such as Jon Masters) in the desc
On 06/04/2013 08:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:22:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
>> I disagree - this lets people judge proposed talks/sessions on what is
>> written.
>
> I don't go to presentations because of the quality of the abstract. I go
> to presentations ba
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts (or
> describe themselves in such a way that it is obvious who they are) ended
> up like this. We honestly didn't think that was going to happen.
>
> This was an experiment. If
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:22:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I disagree - this lets people judge proposed talks/sessions on what is
> written.
I don't go to presentations because of the quality of the abstract. I go
to presentations based on whether or not I believe the speaker is
competent i
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned (such as
> Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field isn't actually
> that levelled after all?
Only people who refer to themselves by name in their own abstracts (or
des
On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned (such as
Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field isn't actually
that levelled after all?
Only people who refer to themsel
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> > On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
> >> (such as Jon Masters) in the descriptions, so the playing field
On Tue, 04.06.13 09:46, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 04:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> >> These submissions are mostly anonymized (some people put their names
> >> or enough details in the a
On 06/04/2013 04:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> These submissions are mostly anonymized (some people put their names
>> or enough details in the abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed
>> speakers were). This is inten
2013/6/4 Lennart Poettering
>
> This sounds seriously misguided. I mean, I usually prefer attending
> talks where I know that the presenter is actually involved in the
> respective project, rather than just any random guy/gal.
>
> I am all for levelling the playing field, but things like this sou
On Mon, 03.06.13 12:36, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> These submissions are mostly anonymized (some people put their names
> or enough details in the abstracts to make it obvious who the proposed
> speakers were). This is intentional, as we are trying to eliminate an
> area of potent
>
> The latter :-)
Thanks Bill, Rahul. Sorry for this noise.
Note to self: *Read* the goddamn email completely (especially at 01:00 AM)
before hitting
the send!
--
/kashyap
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>
> Tom/Anyone:
>
> Is it purposeful to not have presenter's name next to each talk's Abstract
> ? Or is it a
> limitation of the talk proposal system ? Or am I just terribly blind ?
>
The latter :-)
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
dev
Kashyap Chamarthy (kcham...@redhat.com) said:
> Tom/Anyone:
>
> Is it purposeful to not have presenter's name next to each talk's Abstract ?
> Or is it a
> limitation of the talk proposal system ? Or am I just terribly blind ?
From the message you quoted:
...
These submissions are mostly
anon
On 06/03/2013 10:06 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Thanks to the Fedora Community for submitting 125 awesome talks,
> hackfests, sprints and workshops for Flock, our new contributor conference!
>
> We've taken those submissions and put them in the Fedora Elections web
> application, and now, it is time
Thanks to the Fedora Community for submitting 125 awesome talks,
hackfests, sprints and workshops for Flock, our new contributor conference!
We've taken those submissions and put them in the Fedora Elections web
application, and now, it is time for you to give us your feedback. These
proposals hav
16 matches
Mail list logo
