hey folks-- I swear i am not trying to open a can of worms here. We had one big (messy, disastrous) round of talk reviews, accepted some talks, and encouraged folks to organize not-accepted talks on-the-fly during the conference with whatever unconference system we set up. However, as predicted by everyone with prior debconf experience, more submissions are still coming in. I have personally approved two of the late-submission talks and officially scheduled them. This might be overstepping what i should have done, and i'm fine with those decisions being reversed if people feel they should be. Please let me know if you think i've made a mistake (off-list if you like, i'll report the general sentiment on-list and fix what needs fixing). The two talks i approved and scheduled myself were: * Bits from the Release Team (suggested/encouraged by zack and offered by 3 of the team members who will be present) * Project Caua by maddog. This was advocated by both andy oram (heading up the community outreach track) and biella for DebDay. However, there are about 15 other late submissions that have never been reviewed and are neither accepted nor rejected. So my questions are: What should we do with those late submissions? Should we explicitly schedule any more of them? Should we leave them up to the during-conference first-come-first-serve unconference system (which does not yet currently exist)? Should we do something else? It would be nice to at least mail the submitters of these events with an idea of what they should expect. --dkg PS this message is sent to debconf-team@ because i think it's important to be public about it (particularly about the steps i've taken). However, if you feel the need to have not-publicly-archived discussion about these questions, i would encourage followups to talks@debconf.org, not just to me personally.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature