[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Time slot lengths



also sprach Maximiliano Curia <maxy@debian.org> [2014-09-15 20:15 +0200]:
> Everybody loves lightning (5') talks, what if we extend the idea
> and have 10', 20' apart from the normal 45' talks?

My gut feeling is that having too many different lengths will be too
much. Maybe it would make sense to start with just 20'-talks?
Lightning talks are separate anyway.

Another thing that came up in the post-meeting discussion is that
the tracks need to be consistent, i.e. either all tracks have a 45
min slot, or all tracks have shorter talks happening at the same
time. We should not have a 45' talk at the same time as two 20'
talks, because it might mean that you have to skip a 45 minute
session just because you care about a 20' slot.

Moreover, the 20' events can probably be done side-to-side, maybe
even with a single talkmeister and a single laptop with the slides
preloaded.

And then it could make sense to have those events be closely
related, because we should be aware of the implications of the great
exodus when people dash out of one 20' minute session to make
another in a different room shortly afterwards. Ideally, we can
prevent this and keep interested people in the room for both (or
all) sessions within a slot.

This could also mean 20+5+20+15 instead of 20+10+20+10. However,
distances in HD are short, and it'll definitely be possible to
switch rooms within 10 minutes, if this is something we desire or
want to facilitate (or not prevent).

We should draft this (whatever it is that we come up with) into
a concrete proposal and take it to the talks team ASAP, or straight
to dc-team.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :'  :  DebConf orga team
`. `'`
  `-  DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org
      DebConf16 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16

Attachment: digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)


Reply to: