Re: [Debconf-team] So we have a talks team!
Hi Steve, et al.
On 23/04/14 18:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I asked this question on IRC the other day, but now that we have a talks
> team, I can ask you all directly for your thoughts. I'm expecting to get
> conference registration opened today, and ideally the "call for papers"
> would follow shortly thereafter. Do you want to provide any guidance around
> tracks as part of the CfP, or do you want the tracks to be organized only
> after you see what papers people submit? (Of course, even if we suggested
> some tracks in the CfP, there would be room for adding other tracks later,
> or accepting papers that don't fit the pre-defined tracks.)
I have been away from this task for a while, so I don't know what was
done in the last few years. Proposing tracks seems like a good way to
steer the conference into some areas, and maybe even get more talks, as
people might be more tempted to send a proposal if the topic has been
already suggested. I also find that RichiH's comment on IRC is a good
compromise:
[18:15:49] <RichiH> [18:16:41] harmoney: from a speaker's PoV, i prefer
"these are our topics, please submit" to "these are the tracks; make
sure you fit"
The downside to this is getting the topics/tracks list done in time for
the CfP...
> And more broadly, does the talks team want to own sending the CfP itself?
> I'm happy to handle the summit development side of things and leave the CfP
> to someone else.
I don't mind either way.
--
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
Reply to: