Re: [Debconf-team] Draft of the "Call for Proposals"
Hi,
below are my own opinions, I am not speaking for the content team as a
whole.
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:21:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Four bits of feedback:
>
> First, are we sure we want to invite talks and leave it up entirely
> to the presenter, whether they can be broadcast by video? Shouldn't
> it be much more that we require permission to broadcast by video all
> presentations (not necessarily debates or ad-hoc stuff) and will
> make exceptions only if given a good reason?
I tend to agree with you here. Remote participation is a very important
part and we should make it clear that livestream and recordings are
absolutely supposed to be the default.
> Second, do you see any way to move the deadline earlier, e.g. end of
> April?
>
> Not only would this help with press releases and attract attention.
> It also helps people to know a vague schedule before registering.
> Not all of us can just go to DebConf for its entire duration without
> knowing what will be on offer when.
Last year we accepted quite a few talks early, and I think we should do
this again. So I think we should also mention this in the CfP, like "we
plain to accept a first round talks by April 15th" or whatever date we
come up with. Depending on how many submissions we get, we could even do
a second round, filling up 50-70% of the slots.
> More importantly, however, while some of us will go to DebConf
> anyway whether getting a proposal accepted or not, many will only be
> able to go if their proposal is accepted e.g. because only then can
> they get paid leave and funding. Therefore, it'd be necessary to
> know of acceptance well before the reconfirmation deadline, which
> I don't think is sensibly possible when the submissions deadline is
> two weeks before the reconfirmation deadline.
See above, would that help in that regard?
OTOH, I think we should *not* solicit feedback like "I need to know by
foo whether my talk gets accepted for travel planning reasons", to not
put more pressure on us.
> Third, are you still considering making some early decisions
> including but not limited to explicitly invited speakers? Again,
> it'd be useful to be able to advertise the conference with some
> concrete events, and it could drive up quality if early submissions
> are encouraged when there's a chance to get them accepted early. If
> so, then I suggest to add something relevant to the announcement.
My impressions was that we would treat invited speakers differently and
select them earlier. Though I think it would be wise to keep 1-2 slots
open for last-minute "deals" like we had with the Linus Q&A last year
(even though some people didn't like its content).
> Finally, you are explicitly inviting "other types of events"
> including workshops etc., which is awesome. But a workshop probably
> won't fit in a 45 minute slot, at least not if the goal is to engage
> participants.
Hrm, good point.
Michael
Reply to: