On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:46:46PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:04:35PM +1100]: > > > I'd appreciate if we were able to add tracks to our current setup. > > > OTOH, we have sometimes defined tracks based on preexisting talks > > > rather than (or additionally to) the other way around... So we can > > > get to that point later on. > > > > Wafer does not have the concept of tracks, currently. It can > > probably added pretty trivially, but before we take this upstream, > > I'd really appreciate if we could evaluate this first and conclude > > that we really benefit from tracks. > > > > Do we? How do we want to use them? > > We *have* used them in the past quite a bit, and they were very > successful. I've organized the science track at DebConf10, and back then I actively reached out to prospective speakers and assembled a schedule. I think we had an afternoon for us in one room.
If we'd do that, I think tracks are quite worthwhile. > But then again, at some other DebConfs, they have been quite > meaningless. Right, during more recent DebConf they were mostly a way to color-code the schedule, with some limited scheduling to ease people around. > It depends on the content team in question, and even on the cultures > of the different speakers (and audiences). I didn't manage to get tracks off the ground for DC15 due to more pressing needs, and I won't manage this year either. If we quickly send out a call for track organizers, it might work, but maybe we are stuck with suboptimal solutions we can't say no to, as well. Michael _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
