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

Re: [Debconf-team] Talks and scheduling update

On 06/18/2011 05:48 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ok, so I spent some time scheduling the top-rated talks today, and we
> have a preliminary schedule to start working with. Yay!

Thank you, Gunnar!

> • We are scheduling so far on two rooms only. We can add a BoF room if
>   needed, but it will not have video coverage, and we should only open
>   it if the schedule gets too full before the confernce.

last year, we had two rooms with video team coverage, with a third,
un-videoed room.  Given that some BoFs are quite clear that they want
v-t coverage, I don't think that dividing the rooms into "BoF/Non-BoF"
status is a good distinction.  I'd prefer to call a third room a
"non-video room" or something.

> • I scheduled only the "accepted" talks. To do this, I followed the
>   usual DebConf guidelines (basically it means no two concurrent
>   accepted events will ever happen - Of course, unofficial /
>   not-accepted / whatever-we-call-them-this-time can be scheduled
>   concurrent to them

If that's the "usual debconf guidelines", it's the first i'm hearing
about it.  I certainly didn't follow it when i scheduled talks for DC10.

As for terminology, i suggest just using "pre-scheduled" talks to refer
to the ones that we are scheduling through this process.  Let's not go
down the "unofficial" road.

This leaves open the question of how we deal with the other events,
though.  Will we be doing during-conference scheduling?  or opening up
first-come/first-serve before debconf itself starts?

> • I suggest to have seven hours of talks every day (10:00-13:00 and
>   15:00-19:00). This can be modified, but seems sensible to me. I
>   didn't schedule anything at 10:00, as it is the lowest turnout time,
>   but it is available for any other talks

this leaves 7 45-minute slots per day, with 15-minute gaps between each
slot.  Sounds good!

> • Tracks. That's a point that bothers me... I think this year we did
>   not manage to organize them as successfully as last year. Excluding
>   "social activities" (a meta-track where all non-academic talks are
>   grouped), we have:
>   ‣ Skill exchange — Only one talk, so it's not precisely a track
>   ‣ Debian.org-related webservices — Seven talks (some of them I'm not
>     sure that fit the topic)
>   ‣ Debian/Society — 10 talks (again, I feel some of them are not
>     precisely on-topic)

Zack and i are discussing how to trim/adjust these, if we go ahead with
the track.

>   ‣ Blends — Only one talk, although there is at least one other that
>     could be added (debian-med), but it's still too little to be a track
>   ‣ Large-scale deployment — Rhonda, the track coordinator, contacted
>     me and basically told me the track disappeared due to a missing
>     speaker and his talk being moved to DebianDay.

Do we have explcitly-designated coordinators for these other tracks?  If
so, do they know that they're track coordinators?  have they been given
the privileges to mark events as belonging to their track, or at least a
way for them to report and give feeback/suggestions?

If we think that we're just too late for tracks to work out this year,
maybe we should go ahead and cancel them and just schedule talks


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: