On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 11:36 -0800, Jono Bacon wrote: > * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at > the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks > think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and > instead just have 'tags' for sessions (e.g. you add a session > and tag it from a limited set of tags). Do you think this would > be a better approach? <snip> > * Track Leads - there seemed to be some confusion surrounding the > expectations and responsibilities of track leads. How do you > feel track leads could be most effective in helping the UDS > experience?
I think these are related. One thing that I think was lost with this
UDS was a sense of "ownership" of a particular track. I felt like
before the track leads knew what was on their track, and why it was
there. This created a certain amount of continuity.
What I think happened is that the number of sessions got overwhelming
for the track leads, there was no way to keep up. Which is true.
So what I'd propose is have a set of "focused tracks" where there is
strong leadership from the track leads. And then have a set of
un-tracks that are loosely aligned, but allow for the breadth of
materials that UDS covers.
--Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
