Re: DebConf 2 post-mortem
Joey Hess wrote:
I agree that there needs to be more time allocated for hacking. Maybe
half and half lecture/hacking time.
Russell Coker wrote:
Getting DebConf to take 5 days (which is longer than OLS incidentally)
depends on having 5 days worth of talks. That may be difficult. OLS
accepted 60 talks and according to rumour declined about the same number,
wheras the total number offered for DebConf is rumoured to be <30.
long enough. I wouldn't mind seeing DebConf span up to maybe 5 days
in the future. Piggy backing on OLS would have not been nearly enough
What I wouldn't mind seeing is 2 or 3 days either before or after the
next one that lack talks and are just there for ad-hoc discussion and
face time and hacking. It was nice to have the talks but I really went
for the other 3 items. Call it 'debcamp' or something. Extra
organizational overhead should be near-zero; the people who stay on for
debcamp just use the same facilities as does the conference.
We tried this at wineconf. It was mildly productive. We were able to
make a list of required features for wine 0.9 and decide on some new
bugzilla procedures. But the working groups were moderator lead, not
just free for all. But we decided that on the spot. I imagine that if
people had known ahead of time that there would be working groups, there
could've been more organization on the lists, etc.
lead windows compatibility engineer
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com