also sprach Carl Karsten [2016-02-15 12:07 +1300]:
> I have seen tags be done well and less so. I am not sure what the
> magic is.
Not claiming that I have said PhD in tagology (Enrico Zini knows
a lot about this topic…), but I think taxonomy is a huge deal here.
Either
also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2016-02-14 09:32 +1300]:
> If people have ideas for tracks, I could possibly be convinced to
> do "own" one such track, which would mean doing the work of
> finding speakers who canA talk interestingly on topics within that
> track. I'd love to
Assuming some effort is put in (both coding and using the feature) I think
a better use of time is tags.
which should require a PHD in tagology or something before I continue ;)
I have seen tags be done well and less so. I am not sure what the magic is.
But I often see other metadata that to
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
>
>
> I've organized the science track at DebConf10, and back then I actively
> reached out to prospective speakers and assembled a schedule. I think
> we had an afternoon for us in one room.
>
> If we'd do that, I think
martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:04:35PM +1100]:
> > I'd appreciate if we were able to add tracks to our current setup.
> > OTOH, we have sometimes defined tracks based on preexisting talks
> > rather than (or additionally to) the other way around... So we can
> > get to that point
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:46:46PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:04:35PM +1100]:
> > > I'd appreciate if we were able to add tracks to our current setup.
> > > OTOH, we have sometimes defined tracks based on preexisting talks
> > > rather than (or
also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2016-02-05 05:43 +1100]:
> I'd appreciate if we were able to add tracks to our current setup.
> OTOH, we have sometimes defined tracks based on preexisting talks
> rather than (or additionally to) the other way around... So we can
> get to that point