Re: [Debconf-team] [Coordination] Timeline changes proposal for DC16
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 08:10:13AM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
>
Hola :)
>
> > On 24 Aug 2015, at 23:48, Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding talks
> (…)
>
> > This year we had the submission deadline in the middle of the
> > reconfirmation process, which meant that approved talks were not
> > announced until after the reconfirmation process had ended. Also,
> > bursaries was interested in knowing if an attendee had submitted a
> > talk and the approval status of it when deciding whether to sponsor
> > them or not, but this information was not available at all. It is my
> > opinion that both things should be avoided if possible.
>
> I don’t see this as a huge problem. There are not many people (AFAIK) who
> needs a talk to get sponsorship, and I’m not sure giving 10 more point
> to people having an approved talk (for travel sponsorship, just an example)
> will help DebConf to have the best talks (vs. many talks).
I agree with cate here, if you only submit a talk just for the sake
to be consider for travel sponsorship you are putting more burden to
talk selection.
I also agree with marga that communications between teams needs be improved,
we also need to improve using tools to share information between different
teams. I've never used penta to rate talks, but AFAIK there was an easy
method to rate talks, right now we lack of such tool with summit and rating
is quite painfully and it was done almost manually.
Also, it is complicate to accept talks on the early days of CfP,
from past experiences: We use to get a lot of (good?) submissions just
when we are reaching the deadline as marga also mention.
IMHO, Accepting early birds may remove one talk slot for a very good
talk given by a more qualify speaker on the same subject.
But maybe if we have an easy way to rate in an also very simple
method: (ACCEPTED/REJECTED/QUEUED) and bursaries can query it when they
like it, could make their life easier when they need to take a decision that
require such information.
This may be a wishlist for the registration system :)
Cheers
--
René
Reply to: