Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team
martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:24:34AM +0200]:
> also sprach Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> [2014-09-21 03:51 +0200]:
> > 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.
>
> Why not? 20 good talks would be much better than 80 mediocre talks,
> IMHO. It's not like we (the attendees) won't be able to use the time
> wisely otherwise!
Of course — And we didn't accept *all* of the early talks, there was a
bit of filtering done. But it was not with the same criteria or level
than the filtering done later on. And, of course, we could not reject
a previously approved talk.
In the end, we ended up (as always) with enough content for 80 good
talks. Some were better than others, of course. But I don't feel
DebConf has to tighten its selection process due to accepting too many
mediocre talks.
> Our selection criteria should be based on relevance, interest, and
> quality in terms of speaker knowledge and preparation (as I said, we
> need not select for presentation skills). We should not aim to fill
> the slots, IMHO, that's wasted resources (and if only on behalf of
> the video team). Only if we get more submissions than slots, then
> we'll need to start selecting according to what we think will make
> our conference super interesting.
That's what we have always done :)
Reply to: