Re: [Debconf-discuss] Talk selection for Debconf 7
On 8 Jun 2006, Christian Perrier outgrape:
>
>> 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.
As I said, timing could be worked on. At least the people
presenting the talks know they are coming, and a number of people not
giving talks are more or less committed by that time. However, as
long as the people believe there is a possibility they shall attend,
then the market principle shall hold. Indeed, if we encourage people
to register if they think there is a possibility they could come, and
confirm later,
> So, in short, who would get the right to vote at a moment
> where....we don't exactly know who will attend.
And I am not sure it is critical that the people voting be
actually the ones who do end up attending. If there is a slight
mismatch between the set of people interested in Debian and debconf
who vote, and the set of people who end up coming, I don't think the
effect is significant.
> 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 tend to concur.
>>> <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 argument.
Rubbish. Age has nothing to do with it. There are names of
people younger than I in the project in the list that follows that
not only garner respect, but a certain reverent hush as well: Joey
Hess. Steve Langasek. Ted T'so. Russ Coker. Anthony Towns. James
Troup. Ian Murdock. Ben Collins. Clint Adams. Don Armstrong. Branden
Robinson. Colin Walters. I could go on (this is a very partial list,
off the cuff, and I apologize to the legion of other luminaries I am
missing here).
And for people I don't know for sure about who is older, there
is Bdale Garbeee, Russ Allbery -- and many more.
Age is unimportant. Competence is.
And while Alex is correct in assuming that his name is not one
of the august company partially named above, this should not be
taken as discouragement of belittlement -- it just means there is
time enough for his actions to impress me. It just might be my
ignorance of why he ought not to be a member of that set of people
that I greatly respect, in the future.
manoj
--
Rule of the Great: When people you greatly admire appear to be
thinking deep thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: