On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:15:31AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Richard Darst <rkd@zgib.net> [2009.06.30.0912 +0200]: > > - Featured DebConf Talks > > - Secondary DebConf Talks > > Why do we separate between them? Doesn't this suggest a level of > "inferiority" of secondary talks? What's the benefit, other than > sponsorship? I agree that the distinction is blurry... The reason I kept them separate is that we currently have "official" and "unofficial" and didn't want to be too radical, just make it more clear what was included in each. I'm fine for a bigger shift in the workflow, too. The primary advantages of being "official"/"featured"/"primary" are: - priority in scheduling (try to avoid conflicts) - counts more for travel sponsorship - (not this year) priority in videoing - more emphasis on being in the printed proceedings (and maybe in printed schedules) - The idea that the talk is more directly related to the benefit of Debian I'm not completely happy with any of the proposals (including mine). We should probably keep in mind that the goal here isn't to change things, but is to make names so that attendees will be less confused about what they mean. If we can't do that, we shouldn't change it. How should we accomplish that? - richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - lefschetz: up 147 days, 13:34 | http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature