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

2nd Call for Talks for the FOSDEM Debian Developer's room



Hi all,

(from the "if the Linux.conf.au people can send this type of mails to
this list, so can I" department...)

About a month ago, I sent out a first Call for Talks to the
debian-project and debian-events-eu lists[1].

In the mean time, I did receive an official confirmation that we will be
able to get a DevRoom at FOSDEM for the whole weekend; more
specifically, we will be having room AW1.125, which has 76 seats, on
saturday from 14:15 to 19:00, and on sunday from 09:00 to 18:00. If I
remember correctly, room AW1.125 is the same room we had last year, but
I could easily be mistaken.

Thus far, I've received proposals from five people[2]; this is good, but
it can be better. To reiterate, talk proposals should be sent to me[3],
should contain your name and the title of your talk as you wish them to
appear on the official schedule, and a short text (one or two
paragraphs) about yourself and the talk subject matter, enough for me or
someone else to give you a short introduction. Note that talks will be
allocated on a first come, first serve basis. Finally, you should also
give me an estimation of the time your talk will need (one hour max,
please).

We will also be having a booth; this will consist of two 2m wide tables
(that is definately the same size we had last year). Suggestions of
stuff to show off there is also welcome in my mailbox.

Thanks, and see you at FOSDEM,

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-events-eu/2006/11/msg00001.html
[2] A full list will be provided later on. If you submitted a talk
    proposal, you should have received a reply by now; if you didn't,
    please send your proposal again.
[3] wouter@grep.be or wouter@debian.org. Please help my mail filters by
    using the word "FOSDEM" in the subject line.

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: