[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Talk selection for Debconf 7

>         The concrete proposal is this:  We already have software
>  in place that allows registered attendees to vote on proposed
>  talks. Every individual is allocated, say, $1000 in funny money (or,
>  1000 points, if you will), to allocate as they please between the
>  talks proposed.  The amount of funny money (or points) that a talk
>  garners would determine a rough ranking.  Timing issues can be
>  discussed (as in, deadline for abstracts, deadline for selection of
>  talks, deadline for full paper submission, etc).

That scheme could work...theoretically. However, how can you play with
the fact that, indeed, talks ar usually chosen *before* the moment
where people determine themselves about coming or not.

So, in short, who would get the right to vote at a moment where....we
don't exactly know who will attend.

I find your proposal interesting and it can cerainly improve the
current approach which...as far as I know...has only been established
partly for DC5 and more formally for DC6.

I have actually not miracle solution and I'm only sure that,
considering that Debconfs improve from year to year on many
matters....we can safely assume that DC7 will improve over DC6 in that
matter also.

>   A) I was there. I saw the talk selection, and read the abstracts,
>      including the talks thatwere rejected.
>   B) This is not rocket science.  Submission of papers to peer
>      reviewed journals and professional conferences is not an obscure,
>      arcane process (unless you have never participated in one)

But it maybe does not fit very well with the very informal nature of
Debconf. Comparing Debconf to a classical scientific or academic
conference is probably  difficult.

> > <irony> You know, just because we are younger than you, doesn't mean
> > we do the thinks on a gut level.  We have reasons to do things, the
> > way we do. </irony> Which leads to the next point: Don't play the "i
> > have more experience, because I'm older, so shut up" card.  It
> > doesn't work; even worse: It might even be seen as arogant by the
> > people you try to "dicsuss" with.
>         My age has nothing to do with it.  Neither does
>  yours. You really do not want to go there.  Get the chip off your
>  shoulder, stop obsessing about  your age, and look at the substance
>  of what is being proposed.

I think that, at least, you should consider Tolimar's arguments. Maybe
that "age game" is something that you play without even noticing it
and wanting to appear as playing it (uh, I would better say this in my
language...). So, even though Alex probably was pissed off enough for
writing it...there is certainly some reason for him to raise this

I'm probably an expert in that game because I know I play it from time
to time as well...for instance right now..:)

Reply to: