also sprach Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@cateee.net> [2015-02-15 10:04 +0100]: > Usually we were sending the two announces in parallel. (but > I don’t remember discussions, so maybe it was only for technical > reason) The advantage of sending separate ones is "buzz", i.e. reminding people and staying in their heads. > No, it is not true. Last year, until few days before closing first > CfP, we had very few proposed talks. People had very little time last year. I don't think it's a useful comparison. > I remember that I was actively encouraging “institutional” > entities to give a talk. But at first CfP deadline we had already > to much talks (BTW I think we had also fewer slots). But we *want* as many talk proposals as possible so that we can select for quality and diversity, no? > BTW we have few problems with early proposal of talks (and IMHO also > for sprint): > - DPL election (OK, we can reserve a DPL talk anyway) > - release: I think it is difficult to release team, and also other teams, to > talk about (and to do sprint about) future releases/transitions/ > changes/etc. before we do a release. I think the DPL and release team talks are a given and will/should receive prominent slots even during the Open Weekend no matter whether the teams write a proposal or not ;) > For these contingencies, I recommend content team not to push to > much on the “first-served” basis, for this year, but only to start > testing it for DC16. In general, I think first-served basis is not a real guideline we should use. We might allocate e.g. 10% of slots to very early submissions if we feel like it's beneficial to have some events to be able to advertise with (like last year). But in general, I think that we should select for quality and diversity, as stated above, between all proposals submitted by the deadline. -- .''`. 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)