Re: [Debconf-team] Event "tracks" (was: talk submissions: wafertest vs. summit)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:46:46PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:04:35PM +1100]:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Wafer does not have the concept of tracks, currently. It can
> > probably added pretty trivially, but before we take this upstream,
> > I'd really appreciate if we could evaluate this first and conclude
> > that we really benefit from tracks.
> >
> > Do we? How do we want to use them?
>
> We *have* used them in the past quite a bit, and they were very
> successful.
I've organized the science track at DebConf10, and back then I actively
reached out to prospective speakers and assembled a schedule. I think
we had an afternoon for us in one room.
If we'd do that, I think tracks are quite worthwhile.
> But then again, at some other DebConfs, they have been quite
> meaningless.
Right, during more recent DebConf they were mostly a way to color-code
the schedule, with some limited scheduling to ease people around.
> It depends on the content team in question, and even on the cultures
> of the different speakers (and audiences).
I didn't manage to get tracks off the ground for DC15 due to more
pressing needs, and I won't manage this year either.
If we quickly send out a call for track organizers, it might work, but
maybe we are stuck with suboptimal solutions we can't say no to, as
well.
Michael
Reply to: