On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]>wrote:
> hey folks-- > > I swear i am not trying to open a can of worms here. > > We had one big (messy, disastrous) round of talk reviews, accepted some > talks, and encouraged folks to organize not-accepted talks on-the-fly > during the conference with whatever unconference system we set up. > > However, as predicted by everyone with prior debconf experience, more > submissions are still coming in. > > I have personally approved two of the late-submission talks and > officially scheduled them. This might be overstepping what i should > have done, and i'm fine with those decisions being reversed if people > feel they should be. Please let me know if you think i've made a > mistake (off-list if you like, i'll report the general sentiment on-list > and fix what needs fixing). > > The two talks i approved and scheduled myself were: > > * Bits from the Release Team (suggested/encouraged by zack and offered > by 3 of the team members who will be present) > > * Project Caua by maddog. This was advocated by both andy oram > (heading up the community outreach track) and biella for DebDay. > > However, there are about 15 other late submissions that have never been > reviewed and are neither accepted nor rejected. > > So my questions are: > > What should we do with those late submissions? Should we explicitly > schedule any more of them? Should we leave them up to the > during-conference first-come-first-serve unconference system (which does > not yet currently exist)? Should we do something else? > I would suggest one of two options: 1) Reviewing them and "pencilling" them into a schedule, with the caveat, that since they were late, that when we have a system they might get bumped. 2) We explicitly tell them that since they missed the deadline, and they need to resubmit once we have an unconference scheduling system in place. I personally would be comfortable leaving it to your judgement to decide, but others may have stronger opinions. -Brian > > It would be nice to at least mail the submitters of these events with an > idea of what they should expect. > > --dkg > > PS this message is sent to debconf-team@ because i think it's important > to be public about it (particularly about the steps i've taken). > However, if you feel the need to have not-publicly-archived discussion > about these questions, i would encourage followups to [email protected], > not just to me personally. > > > _______________________________________________ > Debconf-team mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team > >
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
