On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:27:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > Hi Micah-- > > Thanks, i think your mail describes what happened and why we're in a > tough/confused state right now. > > I also like your proposal, though i have two outstanding questions about > it before i feel like going ahead with it in full: > > On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote: > > I would propose that the best way forward, at this point, taking into > > considerations all the discussions here and on IRC would be this: > > > > 1. send an acceptance to all the currently 'accepted' talks in penta, we > > don't bother including the 'two main rooms' details. it was accepted, > > implementation details come later > > > > 2. send a reject notice to the bottom 20 that did not make the cut due > > to the ratings > > could you draft the rejection notice you're proposing someplace? Sure, but I welcome others to make changes. See the bottom of http://whiteboard.debian.net/dc10-talks-mails.wb > > 3. accept in penta and send an acceptance email to the middle third that > > we had such a hard time deciding on last night, this email would be no > > different than #1 > > > > 4. we schedule Schipiro (414) along with the two main rooms > > > > Doing this will result in plenty of room for last-minute space for > > talks. Determining what to do with talks that were actually rejected > > that are later re-submitted as last-minute would be up to the on the > > ground schedulers. > > who or what are the "on-the-ground schedulers"? How are they expected > to decide things? Are these people (or machines?) up for accepting the > possible workload we're setting up here? I don't know who or what these are, but we don't need to know that to go forward with this plan. Based on what other people are saying, it sounds like we will need to figure this out, I know Gunnar offered his services at the conference for this purpose. In the past, these have not been machines, I dont expect them to be this year either. > Concretely, here's the info that it seems would be useful to gather: > > I'd say that we have v-t coverage options that the submitter or > presenter should be able to choose: > > * need (e.g. remote participants) > * want > * don't care > * do not want > > I think it might also be nice to ask the submitter/presenter to estimate: > > * how many attendees do you expect? > * maximum number of attendees you would be willing to accomodate > > (leaving these blank means "don't know" in the first case and infinity > in the second) Leaving this up to a presenter may result in skewed answers, depending on the person's relative feeling of how important, interesting their own talk is (likely pretty high). I am not against asking for this, if it is technically feasible, just that we should not be taking this information literally. > If there was a way for attendees to indicate "i'd like to attend this > talk", that might also help the schedulers decide which rooms are > appropriate. We did have that in the past with comas I believe. micah
Attachment:
pgpY5l_0JjEtj.pgp
Description: PGP signature