Re: [Debconf-team] Issues regarding venue and scheduling process
Moray Allan dijo [Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:50:51AM +0100]:
> - I don't agree that two rooms gives insufficient scheduling space,
> especially considering the decrease in the number of submissions. I
> expect we can create an additional downstairs meeting space, but I
> would rather we wait until DebCamp (or until we get floor plans for
> the building, but I suspect DebCamp will come first), finalise the
> room use, and then open up the remaining slots, including that space,
> for late scheduling, roughly following the scheme used last year.
city | count | scheduled
----------------------+-------+-----------
Edinburgh | 181 | yes
Edinburgh | 22 | no
Mar del Plata | 97 | yes
Mar del Plata | 37 | no
Cáceres, Extremadura | 132 | yes
Cáceres, Extremadura | 31 | no
New York | 116 | yes
New York | 51 | no
So, in Edinburgh we scheduled 89% of 203 proposals; in Mar del Plata,
72% of 134; in Cáceres, 80% of 163; in New York, 69% of 167.
Right now, we stand at 44 out of 104 (42%), but we have not yet
finished allocating timeslots, so it's almost a futile number. Anyway,
this is prior to DebConf. I don't have the data to tell you the
percentage of talks submitted before/after the deadline, or one month
earlier, or during DebConf (it's not registered... I could go through
the logs, but that's too tortous), but I can tell you that at NY
(where I was part of the on-site scheduling team, with dkg), there
were talks added and scheduled almost every day.
Reply to: