Re: [Debconf-team] Talks and scheduling update
Daniel Kahn Gillmor dijo [Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:53:11AM -0400]:
> > • 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.
No, of course! We currently "opened" two rooms, both of which will
be recorded/streamed. I put all of the BoFs in the second room, as I
was told it's better suited, but it does not mean they are less
important or that they won't have video team.
(although, yes, we were using "BoF room" for the third possible room —
and it should probably be renamed to "Room #3" or so)
> > • 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.
At least we did it several years ago. I might have missed part of the
discussion before 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.
Agreed. Now, if getting "pre-scheduled" is the only benefit of having
a talks selection team, we could think about dropping the team and
just scheduling everything. After all, a relatively large group of us
rated the talks and selected the top among them — Shouldn't that be
rewarded somehow?
> 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 expect us to continue scheduling pre-DebConf, and of course, to
leave ad-hoc scheduling in a similar fashion to last year.
> > ‣ 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?
Well, this should be obvious by now — Andreas Tille and Rhonda,
respectively.
> 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
> individually?
Don't miss Thursday's meeting! :)
Reply to: