also sprach René Mayorga <rmayorga@debian.org.sv> [2015-02-15 01:07 +0100]:
> I prefer the idea of two separate mails, but I will prefer to send the
> CfP after the mail calling for registration.
That seems illogical to me, especially since nothing forces us to
actually announce any talks.
> If we aim to announce some "highlights" we may end using space for
> talks in the first-come first-serve basis,
… which we have done last year, and which is also an incentive for
people to submit events earlier. I also thought it was a great way
to get attention, might have incentivised some people to register,
and generally gave a professional impression.
> I'm also afraid of people canceling on talks that we highlighted
> early, for scheduling purpose is great to know the speaker travel
> details.
This is a problem all conferences have to deal with, and it's quite
normal and widely accepted to announce such a problem and provide an
alternative.
We are a somewhat special conference in that we are not going to
publish a programme and then excite people to sign up and give us
money. So maybe the order of CfP/registrations doesn't matter much.
I've identified a few arguments for why I think we should push the
CfP first (also: some of our sponsors are waiting for it…) and
an official registrations e-mail later, but I have not read any
arguments for why it's better to do it the other way around.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org
DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)