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

Re: [Debconf-team] A proposal about scheduling for DC14

Another thing on this email...

On 21/05/14 02:45, Steve Langasek wrote:

> But it's possible that the other space won't be available to us at this
> point, in which case we are still limited to 200 for the plenaries and
> therefore there's no advantage to *not* having them on the first and last
> days when fewer people are in attendance.

I understand the logistics problem here, but it kind of defeats the idea
of a 'plenary' if we are purposely making it difficult for many people
to attend it.

> In that case, what do you propose instead?  How many slots does the talks
> team want for formal talks?  (Noting that one of the motivations for the
> mixed hack/talk format that we proposed this year was a feeling that
> DebConf has been too talk heavy, with not enough in-between time)

I'd propose that having 3 official tracks is going to reinforce that
feeling. I know I feel a bit stressed when having to choose between two
talks I want to attend. With 3 tracks also there is less change that
there is a slot when there is nothing interesting for me, which makes it

> Why is that a bad thing?  If someone believes that only the talks are
> interesting, not the hacking/bofs, isn't it *better* if they only come for
> the parts they care about?
> I don't think this is going to be the response of our typical DebConf
> attendee, however.  I think Debian contributors are going to appreciate the
> expanded opportunity to hack together.

Isn't this basically the same as DebCamp, at least in theory?

> are coming as "volunteers".  The format this year has been deliberately
> designed to improve upon the status quo, with the explicit understanding
> that people who are actually coming with a work plan can ask the DPL for a
> sprint before DebConf.  (And I think it's a major regression that the DC15
> team has reverted this by reintroducing DebCamp for next year.)

As far as I know, there has been no consensus on DC orga about this, so
it is not a regression. DC14 decided they don't want DebCamp, and DC15
decided that they do want it. I would have loved to have this
discussion, but every time I've tried to raise it, it was mostly ignored.

Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

Reply to: