also sprach Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au [2014-09-22 05:13 +0200]:
FWIW, I think most BoFs could actually be usefully backed by
a survey-type paper -- ie, one that provided background info on
the topic that would help someone who's interested, but not fully
up to date, to participate
also sprach Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
paper for a talk presentation, I think the aspects we are
discussing would surely get better. But I don't know how we can
require people to prepare a paper.
For
also sprach Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org [2014-09-21 03:51 +0200]:
We announced the first batch of accepted talks early on because
CfP response was coming in *very* slow. We feared we would end up
with ~80 slots and... ~20 talks. That would clearly not be good.
Why not? 20 good talks would be
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:53:15AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:20:12AM +0200]:
also sprach Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
paper for a talk presentation, I think
On 09/21/2014 10:15 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'll suggest something contrary here - I *don't* think we should even
try. DebConf is *not* a typical academic conference where people are
presenting state-of-the-art research to a very wide community who are
otherwise disinterested. It's a
also sprach Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org [2014-09-21 18:55 +0200]:
In the end, we ended up (as always) with enough content for 80 good
talks. Some were better than others, of course. But I don't feel
DebConf has to tighten its selection process due to accepting too many
mediocre talks.
I
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez a...@debian.org [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
For bursaries, we had a simple interface allowing us to vote on each
participant
Anthony Towns dijo [Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 09:37:15PM +1000]:
* We must find a way to make submitters to make better talks
descriptions. Bad or incomplete talks description made to waste
a lot of time to both the talks team and attendees.
Yeah, I can see this very well. We should make sure
Michael Banck dijo [Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:03:29PM +0200]:
also sprach Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au [2014-09-19 13:37 +0200]:
An alternative approach: just reject any talks with poor descriptions.
Try to tell submitters early if their description isn't good enough --
maybe give
also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez a...@debian.org [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
* We must find a way to make submitters to make better talks
descriptions. Bad or incomplete talks description made to waste
a lot of time to both the talks team and attendees.
Yeah, I can see this very well. We should
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez a...@debian.org [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
For bursaries, we had a simple interface allowing us to vote on each
participant with between -3 and +3 points. This would be trivial to
do for events too,
Several diverging comments below:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez a...@debian.org [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
* Publishing the list of accepted talks ahead and taking the time
to schedule seems to be a good idea. There are plenty of
Hi everybody,
This is a quick summary of how the talks team worked this year. This mail only
describes the talk selection process and scheduling. The scheduling of the
ad-hoc talks was done by Michael Banck so we'll let him comment on this regard.
Also, some personal comments from members of the
13 matches
Mail list logo
