On 06/03/2010 04:00 PM, micah anderson wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:27:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: >> On 06/03/2010 02:59 PM, micah anderson wrote: >>> 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 Thanks for writing that up. i'm fine with the current text on that page: ---------------------------- == Talk rejected == Hello $PERSON-- Thanks for submitting your proposal event $TITLE for DebConf10. We appreciate your interest and the time you invested in putting together your proposed event. As you may know, we had a large number of submissions for talks, and a limited number of resources. After a long selection process your event was not selected for this year's Debconf. Thank you very much for taking the time to submit your event, we enjoyed having it as an option. We hope this doesn't discourage you from attending Debconf, in fact there will be opportunities for ad-hoc events to occur, if you should wish to still put it on. Details on how that will work will be available at the conference. sincerely, the debconf talks team ------------------------ >> 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. OK by me, as long as we have at least one victi^W^W^Wolunteer for the role. > 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. yes, also agreed. I'd be fine with moving forward with this plan if there are no objections. --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature