Re: Talk/event proposals "Closed source"
Reply at bottom :-
On 21/03/2018, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni@jidanni.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "CK" == Carl Karsten <carl@nextdayvideo.com> writes:
>>> You can see last year's schedule¹
>
> All that looks good. But I am worried about what we don't see: the
> rejected items.
>
> Maybe in the future have a radio
> ( ) Only make my proposal public if it is approved.
> ( ) Make my proposal public now, even though it hasn't gotten approved
> yet. Also keep it public, even if it doesn't get approved.
>
> And have a link to see all public pending proposals.
>
> Also have a link: your proposal will be sent to the Content Team, who
> are [Bob, George...], for review. They will tell you by April 35th their
> decision. If you also want to join the Content Team, press here.
Correction, surely you mean April 5th than April 35th unless we are talking
about another time dimension ;)
>
> Anyway, I am worried that Larry might submit proposal A, whilst Mitch
> might be working on a very similar proposal... but due to the closed
> nature of the system, instead of just joining up with Larry, Mitch toils
> day after day building his independent proposal, because he is unaware
> of Larry's.
>
> Or Frank might submit proposals A, B, and C, thinking if all are
> accepted, than he won't bother submitting D, E, F. As there won't be
> enough time. But in fact A, E, F are the ones the committee would have
> liked, but alas it is too late now... etc. as there is no second round
> maybe and if there was a more open process he could have got feedback
> earlier to find which are the ones people like more.
>
> But then he is also too embarrassed to rally support for his proposals
> by posting them to debconf-discuss etc. instead of waiting for them to
> first be approved.
>
Dear Dan,
There may be a germ of an idea but we would need to more people from
the local team who are in Hsinchu and don't have any bursary needs
just to arrest any potential conflict of interest claim later.
Although the idea has merit, it would be a bit premature without
having a rough number of talks, workshops and events proposed, the
ones which were passed officially, ones which took part of lightning
talks to arrive at rejected numbers to have an idea of rejections.
And the data would have to be of at least the last two debconfs to
have coherence at all. Those numbers would to be shared by Gunnar
which I hope doesn't add more to his troubles than he already is in.
It would also mean adding new bits of code to wafer and if I may
suggest having at least two-three people looking at it through the
process and the system having some way of informing who is looking at
your proposal. If we were to make it transparent then how many votes
were for and against a proposal. No names, just votes just how General
resolutions work.
It also means more fleshed out team then just Gunnar doing all the
work and someway of measuring and reflecting the other 1-2 people's
contributions otherwise it might all end up being up all in Gunnar's
lap again with potential burnout possibility which we wouldn't want
for any reason.
There is another thing that potential presenters have, over-commit and
polishing the idea.
Excerpt taken from yesterday's blog post -
https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/debconf-2018-mate-1-2-0-libqalculate-transition-etc/
"The best advice I can give is to put your proposal in and keep
reworking/polishing it till the end date for applications is near. At
the same time do not over commit yourself. From a very Indian
perspective and somebody who has been to one debconf, you can think of
the debconf as a kind of ‘khumb‘ Mela or gathering as you will. You
can definitely network with all the topics and people you care for,
but the most rewarding are those talks which were totally unplanned
for. Also it does get crazy sometime so it’s nice if you are able to
have some sane time for yourself even if it just a 5-10 minute walk. "
There is another danger that the reviewers would need to watch out
for. Not having prefixed ideas ideas as to what would bring value to
the conference.
For instance, if people see that people working on SQL or JAVA or some
other equally big package has more consideration than small everyday
utilities it would adversely impact both our motto of ' Universal
Operating System' as well as have dangers of making it more
'corporate' as usually big packages, if they are to stay around to be
relevant needs corporate sponsorship to remain relevant. Not to spark
any debates, but that can be easily seen by how GNOME has grown and
KDE has sort of wilted after Nokia's departure.
Lastly, in theory I do like the idea of one or more people
collaborating or even discarding ideas if they see other people having
the same idea. But as in everything else, collaboration is easier said
than done.
Students for instance might reject or not put up proposals if they see
somebody already submitting an idea. It takes anywhere between 2-5
hours or even more fleshing out an proposal . Adding to deal with
another presenter would probably restrict more entries at least from
students who already have college, GSOC and interning somewhere to
having one more person to deal with.
Probably people who have been long in the game could have one or more
fallbacks in case somebody makes a similar proposal but newbies might
not.
At the end, to make it a reality, need volunteers to step up for doing
the code-work as well as to stand up and be part of the review
committee.
>From a 'potential' presenter :)
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल
My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
Reply to: