Re: [Debconf-team] TALKS: advocating broader relevance
micah dijo [Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:33:59PM -0400]:
> (...)
> Personally, I think Debconf can both get a bit boring if the 'relevance'
> is applied too strictly, and too de-focused if it is applied to
> broadly. To make a great conference there should be a balance, and I
> feel like right now it is being applied *very* strictly, and I'd like to
> advocate that a broader interpretation be entertained.
FWIW, that's one of the reasons we rated on three different
axises(?). And, at least personally, even if I didn't rate those talks
very high on "relevance", I didn't rate them negatively (some even
with a single '+'), and often very positively in the two other
dimensions. I think that is consistent with this snippet you quoted
and I requote:
> 0. This is how talks are being rated:
>
> Talks are rated in three categories Each category has five levels, -100,
> -50, 0, 50, 100. Larger numbers are better.
>
> * Relevance - There can be great talks, but some are not appropriate for
> the main track at DebConf. The Relevance category is a measure of
> this.
>
> * Actuality - speaker seems to know the topic and (as far as i know) is
> capable of presenting it
>
> * Acceptance - How well will attendees like this talk and desire to
> attend?
And... IIRC, they had good chances of being accepted on their merits,
at least when I rated them.
--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
Reply to: