also sprach Moray Allan <moray@sermisy.org> [2014-08-18 22:33 +0200]:
> When an event proposal is rejected by the talks committee then again
> by the conference chairs, it might be useful for you to consider
> listening to the reasons why before simply "self-scheduling" the events.
Moray,
I am not aware of any rejection "by the conference chairs". My
pre-message to a bunch of people including all chairs was followed
up only by Tincho (not speaking for all chairs), and I replied to
him (and you) two days ago. Since then, I had a short, very abridged
conversation with Tincho, wherein there was no rejection or
objection — nor approval.
I received no other reply from anyone.
Regarding the talks team rejection, I respect that they couldn't
allocate a slot to my event proposal for reasons, whatever they may
be. But this does not mean I can't (shouldn't) organise it
otherwise, does it?
My motivation is to use our time at DebConf to approach complex and
hard issues with the benefit of sitting in a room together.
To date, I am not aware of any such efforts. I am certain there will
be a myriad of bilateral discussions, but that's no different from
last year, and we've not really advanced since then. Therefore
I went ahead. If it fails, it fails, just like all previous attempts
to rethink DebConf governance have failed.
I am happy to scratch these sessions because the chairs have
different plans, or to organise the sessions for you to lead, as
I told Tincho.
Hope this clarifies things…
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf14: Portland, OR, USA: http://debconf14.debconf.org
DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)