Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf13 talks selection team
Hi Gunnar,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 06:48:03PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I have affirmative answers already from Andreas and Tássia.
:-)
> - Review + send the call for papers
>
> A CfP draft is available at:
>
> https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Talk_submissions
So far OK (I think I had a first look previously.
> Please, take a look and help proofread this. I want to send it at
> most on 2013-05-15. (Should we extend the "official" CfP period? Two
> weeks seems like too short)
For the talks team I'd consider to start with the ranking process at
2013-06-01 a good idea. Past experience shows that this process also
takes about two weeks. I would not have any problem if in this time
some late comers might drop in. In other words: Yes, two weeks is IMHO
to short but to keep the pressure for "traditional" late comers I would
not mind if we stick to this short window in the first place and see how
many we get. Opening another window of additional 7 to 10 days
afterwards would be perfectly fine for me because I think we will not
loose anything.
> - Talks scheduling team. Right now, we are talking about the talks
> /selection/ team. A smaller (but very important!) talks scheduling
> team should be formed soon afterwards.
I also agreed to do this as in previous years.
> - Discuss on talks rating and track acceptance policies (should be a
> short discussion, but I'd rather not assume things we should do as a
> team)
>
> - Wait for talks to "appear", rate them, and have the scheduling team
> work out the best way to present them
---
I wonder whether we want to declare some track topics in advance or
whether we arrange existing talk submissions into tracks afterwards (or
whether we do not use the tracks scheme at all). I'm in favour of
waiting what kind of talks will be submitted and create some kind of
tracks once we have them all but I'm open to declare some "main topics"
in advance if some of you might imagine such topics.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: