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

Re: Reorganising Talk Pages

Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote:
> I was thinking that maybe the events / speakers page should be ordered 
> based on:
> - topic "level" (introduction, users, developers): so that users can
> easily find which talks might be relevant to their level
> - date, so that users can be aware of which time the talk was written
> in (and get an idea of its accuracy)

Good idea.  Sorting should then be done decending, I guess so that the
most recently held talks will be at the top.

> It problaby makes sense to have the talks info in a text file with
> that info and have Perl wml generate the page based on it, ordering
> automatically the talk and generating whatever indexes might be
> needed.

Are you thinking about something like for the events page:

  <define-tag title>Something about Debian</define-tag>
  <define-tag section>general</define-tag>
  <define-tag speaker>Johnny Sixpack</define-tag>
  <define-tag slides>http://www.homepage.net/path/something.html</define-tag>
  <define-tag audio>http://www.somewhere/path/to/something.ogg</define-tag>
  # <define-tag video>no recording</define-tag>

  <define-tag abstract>

    <p>This talk bla blah blah</p>


> I also think that the events@d.o should be replaced by a link to a
> wiki were people could list the talks and some maintainer of the page
> could make them "official" by moving the talks over to w.d.o. That
> way:

For the talks pages I'd rather have it replaced with debian-www so
that the other web people who are quite active can add talks and
maintain the pages as well.  Personally, I'd rather have mail and not
wiki pages for notifications.  However, as I don't want to maintain
the pages on my own but would like the web people (including me)
maintain them, my personal preference may not be suited for a final

> b) speakers get the inmediate benefit of having their talk be
> published, even if in an "unofficial" source (even though wiki.d.o is
> now official)
> That might encourage more people to submit talks and also makes it
> possible to spread over the load of keeping the page current (AFAIK
> only you, and not debian-www) is receiving events@d.o. I'm under the
> impression that there are many 2002 talks but only a few talks of 2003
> forward. When, on the other hand, there have been a lot many talks
> from 2003 forward.

I believe nobody has really maintained the talks and speaker section.
I'm not sure whether I initiated them either (I guess I didn't), and
hence didn't maintain it.  I believe they were under the authority of
debian-www all the time.

Whatever, I don't think events@ needs to maintain the talks and
speakers but debian-www should.

> Another option is to have events@d.o be CC: to debian-www and provide
> a standard form to provide the information of talks, like it's done
> for submissiosn to the "Debian users" page. That way either you or the
> people in charge of the website can convert the standard form
> submissions into the format used in the text file that drives the page
> generation. In -www is rather easy to spot if a submission has been
> added or not based on the reply to the submission in the list and the
> standard header used for all of them. Also, since the speaker would
> provide all the content in order to add it to the DB it would make it
> easier (no e-mail forward/backward) to publish them and people would
> see more benefit to submitting their talk info.

Sounds like a good idea as well.

> I also think that the talks page should direct to the Debconf's
> archive of media content since that includes pretty relevant talks and
> provides both sources and video for them.

Yep, that was the main reason why I thought about this since there are
video and audio recordings, slides, papers and abstracts on the web
for several talks and users just have a hard time finding them.

> Just my 2c. If you need help with coding any of that into the w.d.o
> website please let me know!

Please go ahead (discussion should take place on debian-www though).



Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Reply to: