Re: [Debconf-team] talk submissions: wafertest vs. summit
Michael Banck dijo [Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:19:49AM +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> I had a look at wafertest's talk submission page right now, it's at
> https://wafertest.debconf.org/talks/new/ but you need to create a client
> certificate at https://sso.debian.org/spkac/
>
> For the benefit of people who don't have time to set it up, here are the
> current fields in wafertest for DC16 (* fields are required I assume):
>
> * Title* (one line entry box)
> * Talk type* (list, choose one)
> * Abstract* (multiple line entry box)
> * Authors* (list, choose multiple)
> * Notes (multiple line entry box)
>
> The list of talk types is not setup yet.
>
> To compare, DC15's summit had (I think, my account is admin so it might
> show more than there were):
>
> * Title* (one line entry box)
> * Description* (multiple line entry box)
> * Notes (multiple line entry box)
> * Track (list, choose multiple)
> * Event type* (list, choose one)
> * URLs (multiple line entry box)
> * Duration (list, choose one)
> * Video recording desired/permitted (checkbox)
I'd appreciate if we were able to add tracks to our current
setup. OTOH, we have sometimes defined tracks based on preexisting
talks rather than (or additionally to) the other way around... So we
can get to that point later on.
Video recording should also be included, it has been marked as an
important thing by several people. I'd go for recording everything,
but that's just me ;-)
Besides that, I agree with the simplification. Explicit URLs can be
part of the description, duration can be part of the talk type (as
also discussed later on the thread).
As for notes... If we have the field, we have to ensure to read and
act upon it in a timely fashion!
> The list of evnt types were: Ad-Hoc, BoF, Plenary (admin-only?), Social,
> Special event (admin-only?), Talk, Workshop
Ad-hoc is not something we should offer upfront. Traditionally (and
I'm explicitly not including DC15, as I was not involved) we tried to
leave a portion of unallocated space in our regular, published
schedule, and manage ad-hoc talks strictly opening each slot one or
two days before it happens (or the whole week upon DebCamp start in
other ocassions, or...)
So I'd leave the list at BoF (45m), talk (20m), talk (45m), workshop
(2h) — and add plenary and special event as admin-only. I don't
understand what social is.
> The list of durations were: 20min/45min/other
Durations can be linked as discussed to talk type; if a specific
request were to be made, we would see how to serve it (i.e. a 4hr
workshop can be neatly represented as two consecutive workshops,
specifying in the description (or notes, if it is world-visible) that
it's just a continuation.
> Note that it was called "Description" (not "Abstract"), which I find
> slightly more friendly
Great.
> Finally, I think we don't need the "Authors" list, much less as an
> mandatory field. For multiple-speaker events, we asked the submitter to
> contact the content team who would add the others. However, adding was
> a huge PITA in summit so it would be great if that could be made easier
> in wafertest, most easily by just having an entry box with auto-complete
> or so.
Umh, I feel this to be just the opposite way. Yes, in DebConf we
usually have a one-speaker majority, but there are usually several
talks presented by a team of two or more. Requiring authors to contact
the team, and requiring us to act manually, is a chore. Of course, if
the system does not allow for this to be cleanly represented, I won't
make more waves. But I think it's important to provide room to specify
coauthors.
Reply to: