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

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

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:53:15AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>martin f krafft dijo [Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:20:12AM +0200]:
>> also sprach Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> [2014-09-21 03:48 +0200]:
>> > If we could in some way recover the practice to prepare a small
>> > paper for a talk presentation, I think the aspects we are
>> > discussing would surely get better. But I don't know how we can
>> > require people to prepare a paper.
>> For many subjects, it'd be hard to write a "paper". But why not make
>> this the description, i.e. require that the description be really
>> good and proof that you have thought about it already a lot.
>I agree, not every talk can be backed by a paper, and very few BoFs
>(if any) can. But we can at least encourage it (maybe doing so by
>example when we submit talks and advertising it loudly, doing some
>kind of campaign for full usable, readable descriptions). Again, we
>*started* being a conference with proceedings, and then relaxed our
>ways. It should be possible to go back!

I'll suggest something contrary here - I *don't* think we should even
try. DebConf is *not* a typical academic conference where people are
presenting state-of-the-art research to a very wide community who are
otherwise disinterested. It's a meetup for Debian people to share what
they've been doing and generate ideas together for future stuff. We
already get slides and stuff for most of our talks. I'm trying to
encourage other people to post write-ups of their sessions to -devel
etc. later, which I think is much more valuable than a dead
"proceedings" document which is outside the normal Debian workflow.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out
 whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast."
 Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html

Reply to: