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

[Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org>]

Clint Adams dijo [Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:13:14AM +0000]:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Moray Allan wrote:
> > Personally, I preferred the original Portland proposal of trying a
> > more interleaved schedule -- for me, having blocks of three days for
> > talks / hacking and BOFs just recreates the DebConf/DebCamp split the
> > same as in other recent years, wasting the opportunity to experiment
> > with how a different format works.  If an interleaved format *doesn't*
> > work as well, we wouldn't need to repeat it, but I was ready to
> > believe that it might indeed be better -- we won't find out if we
> > never try it.
> 
> I concur.

I also concur with Moray's reasoning. However, again: if we allow
people to schedule ad-hoc talks during the "quiet" days, even though
the official pre-schedule might look as we intend it to, I believe the
_real_ schedule will look approximately as it always has.

So, yes, if we have to decide between three days of mostly-hackning
(read: What was previously known as DebCamp) and three days of
mostly-conference (read: What was previously known as DebConf), I
think the point pushed by the local team about DebCamp not being a net
benefit for Debian would defeat itself. Interleaving mostly-talks and
mostly-hacking days would at least introduce a change that could in
some way be evaluated.