Hi, thanks for the write-up and your work on talks selections! You seem to be doing a great job! :-) 3 small comments and 1 question below. On Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > 0) we have both "main-room" and "non-main-room" proposals that were > desired to be part of tracks. We had talked about wanting tracks to run > in contiguous time slots in the same room. Do we want folks to have to > shuffle from room to room to follow a track? I think it's desirable to stay in a room in general, but it shouldnt be a hard rule, for example a track could switch rooms (to smaller or bigger) once, to ease scheduling other events. > 1) we have some "non-main-room" proposals that seem likely to attract a > large crowd and probably warrant video (e.g. 532), while some excellent > "main-room" proposals will almost certainly be small and not want or > need video (e.g. 573). This is seems precisely wrong. This also seems easy to solve. Put 532 in main and 573 not. Where is the problem? :) > What should we do? > ------------------ > I think we should send an acceptance e-mail to all serious, sane, > non-withdrawn proposals as soon as possible. Yup. > I said i want to block "nearly all the results" of the meeting-- i think > our decisions about what proposals should be plenaries (i.e. having > nothing scheduled opposite them) were reasonably done, and i don't see a > reason to object to some of the in-track merge suggestions we came to. > > I'm very sorry about this, and sorry that my block here makes the talks > deadline slip still further. Please tell me if i should withdraw my block. I dont understand these two paragraphs. What block? cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.