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

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Talk lengths

Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> writes:

> +++ Gaudenz Steinlin [2014-09-25 12:13 +0200]:
>> Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> writes:
>> > For any useful technical discussion (as opposed to presentations) a
>> > longer session is needed (we could definitely do better at having
>> > more engineering discussion and less presentation, (and I include
>> > myself in that). It's one of the things UDS did better than debconf)
>> I agree with this. We should encourage more technical design
>> discussions. What's currently holding up teams to have such discussions
>> at Debconf? In my perception these nowdays mostly happen at dedicated
>> sprints.
> For intensive work this is probably true. Nothing is stopping people
> doing more of it at debconf (except total hours in a week :-), but we
> just have a bit of a habit of giving talks, more than trying to get
> input on design decisions.
>> I'm not sure if the lack of such sessions has to do with the conference
>> format or if it's just that someone from a team has to sit down and
>> propose something and this is currently too much work and most of these
>> discussions happen in ad-hoc sessions or the "hallway track".
> The difference between UDS-style subject-oriented 'goldfish bowl'
> sessions and the otherwise-excellent 'hallway track' is that the
> former is inclusive of the people you _didn't_ already know were
> interested. The hallway/debian-style way of working tends to mean you
> only discuss something with the people you already know will find it
> relevant. There are often some other people you don't already
> know around, that would in fact make a really useful contribution.
> Perhaps setting one room of 3 out goldfish-bowl style to make the
> whole mic-passing game more efficient (or even better have 2-3 mics
> on stands so remote participation and group discussion is possible
> without a lot of mic-passing wait-states. (The IRC-on-big-screen
> feature of that setup also works moderately well (an advocate in the
> room is much more effective)).
> Having one room out of 3 like this would encourage the idea that (at
> least) 1/3rd of sessions are expected to be in this format.

To me this sounds like a very good proposal we should try out. Having
one room setup for BoFs permanently would help having these sessions in
an adequate setup. I also like the idea of having IRC on a projector.


Reply to: