On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Martín Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sadly, I wasn't in the meeting to discuss this. I don't understand > what's about this keynote-frenzy. It's just to make a point to MarkS? It's mainly because if we are going to have keynotes, we should have more than one. I started it, when I realized that Mark's talk was being listed as the only keynote of the conference. > That seems silly to me, specially when I have already stated many > times that we (the papers committee) accepted MarkS talk but as a > *regular talk*. Where was this officially communicated? The only entry I found about this is a comment in the talk review. **The talk is still a keynote in the public listing of talks**. So forgive me if I can't read your mind. I understood by this, that the talk had been accepted as a keynote, and so did everyone who read the listing. > Also, how's that this 3 additional keynotes were approved without even > a keynote proposal? I'm sure as hell that the papers committee would > have voted positively on talks from this great guys, having been given > the chance to read a proposal, but this is overriding us completely. > No proposal, no discussion, just giving out the more prominent slots > in a way (from what I read in the logs) completely arbitrary. That's how keynotes go. Keynotes don't get proposed and accepted by a papers commitee, you invite a certain speaker that you think is of great value to give a talk of their preference, not the other way round. BTW, the only real "invite" up to now is bubulle's. Bdale had his right to the talk because HP is a Platinum sponsor. And Sledge because he's the current DPL. > Personally, I've spent MANY hours reading proposals, trying to vote as > evenly as possible, and I know that the rest of the committee has > worked as hard. Now I feel that I wasted many precious hours. How come? You have not wasted a single minute. I have just encouraged a bunch of people to add a few more talks, I have not removed any, nor have I approved any talks that weren't approved. > And finally, excuse me, but why mail Marga instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, when I said this, I couldn't think of a proper mail, I didn't even know there was a "commitee". I agree "commitee" would probably have been better, but since I was the one contacting possible keynote speakers it seemed simpler that way. -- Besos, Marga _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
