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

Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team

Michael Banck dijo [Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:03:29PM +0200]:
> > 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"...

FWIW, as a part of the talks team, I'd better not repeat it as it was
this time for the next year.

We announced the first batch of accepted talks early on because CfP
response was coming in *very* slow. We feared we would end up with ~80
slots and... ~20 talks. That would clearly not be good. 

I don't think we accepted many proposals I'd rather not have, but I do
feel it was somewhat unfair — Early submitters were judged differently
from late submitters, and we never announced we would do it this
way. So it was some way of cheating.

Reply to: