Hi, On Tuesday 26 February 2008 19:45, Christian Perrier wrote: > I'm still not really convinced that putting together talks about > related topics in some "sessions" would really be something that could > work. Why not? I agree it might be hard to achieve and it needs someone willing to do the work, but... many conferences have tracks and they get along just fine :) > Debconf is, by essence (Frenglish warning), a quite disorganised event > (no matter the deep respect I have for people who desperately attemps > to make it an organised one) and this is also what makes it special. I dont think it has to stay this way. The Chaos Communication Conferences have the "chaos" in their name, but within 24 years they have grown to a very nice mix of chaos, planning and experience. All three elements are there and they support each other very well. On Tuesday 26 February 2008 17:06, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > The lack of topic grouping is a bug in debconf set-up, isn't it? FWIW, I agree with this. Severity: normal and tagged RFH :-) > There are too many vectors around which you could end up grouping > talks - it's not as trivial as it looks like. And usually, people are > not just interested in a given "track" - Most people in Debian end up > cherry-picking from quite different topics (both for what they work in > or what they want to hear). Even for cherry-picking talks it's good when they are grouped. Also, grouping can be done in various ways, ie one track per day (resulting in 6 tracks) or one track per room and week or whatever. Also it's possible to have most events of the, say, i18n track on monday and tuesday, but one talk from this track on friday, because the speaker only arrives on wednesday. Also having tracks makes it easier to find the talks which are most relevant to one. Having tracks alone doesnt imply anything ;-) > So far, grouping by topic/track has been talked about several times in > the Debconf organization, and so far has been impossible/fruitless. Has this been discussed since we use Pentabarf? Penta supports tracks... > In > any case, it might be interesting to reenable a rating subsystem such > as what we had in Debconf 5 +1 regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpUgbYwePqFP.pgp
Description: PGP signature