Re: [Debconf-team] Report from the talks team
On 18 September 2014 19:13, martin f krafft <madduck@debconf.org> wrote:
> also sprach Ana Guerrero Lopez <ana@debian.org> [2014-09-16 22:19 +0200]:
>> * We must find a way to make submitters to make better talks
>> descriptions. Bad or incomplete talks description made to waste
>> a lot of time to both the talks team and attendees.
> Yeah, I can see this very well. We should make sure that people put
> at least as much time into making a submission as it takes us to
> evaluate it.
Would some sort of wiki-ish approach to talk proposals be possible?
ie, let people propose talk ideas publically, with the ability for
other people to help improve the description, add suggestions or
correct typos before the talk review happens? Could let attendees
provide an indication of interest in a topic in advance too?
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.
Worst case, they get rejected and can organise an ad-hoc session,
can't they?
> - Ask participants to provide links to previous events or videos,
> allowing us to evaluate the quality of the speaker. Note that
> I am not talking about witty audience magnets only, and I have
> seen fantastic(ally prepared) speakers who presented in their
> !first language and didn't have perfect slides.
Does/can debconf offer any help to poor speakers with great ideas?
Like, maybe hooking up a new speaker with an experience speaker to
help draft/review slides, or something like that? Could have some
volunteers available to help folks write good descriptions for their
proposal too, maybe?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Reply to: