Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team
[adding the talks team (back) to the CC list]
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:49:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> [2014-09-19 13:37 +0200]:
> > An alternative approach: just reject any talks with poor descriptions.
> > Try to tell submitters early if their description isn't good enough --
> > maybe give them a short extension after the deadline to resubmit a
> > better description even, but otherwise leave it up to the submitter.
>
> Yeah, I favour this approach.
Alternatively, the talks team could take a quick look at 1/2 (they
accepted a couple of talks this year at around that time, which I found
great, so were looking already) and maybe 3/4 into the CfP and give some
feedback to submissions with bad descriptions, warning them that they
will be rejected if the description is not improved by the end of the
CfP. Hrm, in re-reading AJ's proposal, that's probably what he meant
with "Try to tell submitters early"...
Letting people resubmit with a better description for 1-2 weeks after
the CfP has ended is still a good idea and could be done in addition IMO.
Michael
Reply to: