On 19 February 2015 at 15:05, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
For those not involved in the process so far, I appreciate your patience,
and your suffering in the dark. Making the schedule public too early
caused
significant logistical problems last two times (people thinking they knew
things that they didn't know, and making travel plans accordingly), and
we
want to avoid that nightmare this time around.
For those involved in the process so far:
It looks like we're done with the ApacheCon schedule. Sort of. We've got
7
tracks, three days, which I think is probably just the right volume.
Please look at the DRAFT schedule, and comment in this thread. I, for
one,
think we have a kickin' schedule.
Problems that I think still need solving:
* We have an empty spot in the community track. Given that community is
what we *do*, it seems that we could come up with 6 community talks to
schedule, and have a few fallbacks. If folks could look through the
not-yet-accepted list with me and see what you can find, that would be
awesome.
I did not find what I thought was a really strong community talk.
* We have 16 open slots. We don't need to fill all of them - we need to
leave 6 or 7 slots open for vendor-sponsored talks (Don't worry, these
will
NOT be product pitches) which will show up over the coming weeks. (LF's
problem, not ours.) But I think we can probably put together a few
half-day
tracks if we put our minds to it. We have an entire day/track on
Wednesday,
if someone still thinks that they can put together a complete track (6
talks).
* We need more wait-listed talks. We currently have 6 waitlisted talks,
and I'm probably going to take several of those right now to fill in some
empties.
I am now on my second iteration, to mark talks as wait-listed. The
definition is pretty simple, it need to be an unscheduled talk (of course)
and the speaker must have an accepted talk.
* We have the problem that's not a problem, which is that we had 239
submissions, and have only accepted 115 talks - less than half. So we'll
get a LOT of "why wasn't my talk accepted" emails, and I never have very
good answers to that, because the answer really is, this time, too much
content, too little space. But the questions will come, and that's a very
unsatisfying answer to people that have put time and effort into crafting
talk abstracts.
This is really a good argument for pushing more out to the PMCs and have
track chairs, who start before CFP officially opens, so they can help
create the right talks.
I take this as a lesson learned. To be fair the track-chair idea worked
better than I thought, and next time we know to push harder for that.
If you would like to help with any of these things, please get in touch
with me. Or, just step up and claim it and do it.
Note that I will be flying for much of today, and at a conference
Friday-Sunday, so if I'm not responsive, please ping Jan Iversen, who can
also help you out with this - although apparently I can't make him Owner
of
the Google Doc, so actually sharing the doc with you will be delayed,
unless you respond in the next 3 hours.
thats me :-)
I will be available the next couple of days, and try also to be on IRC as
much as possible....sadly enough sharing is left to Rich.
rgds
jan i
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
