Re: [Debconf-team] General schedule proposal for dc15
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 06:00:45PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:
> >> 8 hours during weekends
> > I think we should not overload the weekend that much.
>
> I'm not sure why, so I'd like to hear more on this point.
> Particularly for the Opening Weekend, we are anticipating a larger
> amount of people, that would come only for the talks. It's possible
> that this assumption is wrong, but given that it's in the middle of
> Germany, I do think we will get quite a lot of "visitors" during the
> weekend, for whom talks will be the most interesting.
>
> I do agree that 8 hours might be a bit too much and reducing that to 7
> would be fine. However, doing much less than that would be a real
> disservice to the attendees.
It is probably fine, but my other point is that we might have some
plenaries, depending on what speakers are available etc., so it might be
7 hours in the main talk room and 5-6 hours in the second talk room,
i.e. not 14 hours overall.
> > We could do this again for the closing
> > day afternoon session and skip the closing session (or demote it to
> > hacking time).
>
> Why would you skip the closing session? It's one of the few sessions
> that everyone attends, and it gives a sense of closure. I don't think
> how we would be better skipping it.
Uh sorry, I meant skip the evening session for talks and have the
afternoon session be the closing session. If people need to hurry to
some other conference *cough*, they can do that then, otherwise, the
evening session would be hacking/ad-hoc time.
Just a proposal, I'm not wedded to it.
> > We should probably also not start too early on the first day, depending
> > on how build-up is planned.
>
> If "build-up" is video-team setup, it should definitely not happen on
> that day, but on the previous days.
Right. Not sure about any sponsor build-up, though. And local german
people need to travel there, so it might take them some time.
Michael
Reply to: