On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Gunnar Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > I feel that as recurring Content Lead, I should join and answer this > thread, even if it has been mostly answered. > > Holger Levsen dijo [Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:36:46PM +0000]: >> > It seems talk/event proposals go into a black box until approved >> > by a "secret" committee, or discarded. >> >> the members of the content team are public, there is not secret >> committee. > > Right - I feel Dan relates to Content as "secret-handling > committee". Which is closer to truth. > >> > In fact >> > https://debconf18.debconf.org/cfp/ >> > doesn't mention that proposals are secret, which is quite different than >> > one would expect with Debian, and >> >> in 19 years of DebConfs AFAIK you are the first to bring this up, so I >> dont think this unexpected or a surprise. >> >> also this is how all conferences i know operate. there are other models, >> like barcamps, however, which operate differently. > > There are many things that are not handled public within Debian, even > within DebConf. Say, choosing who gets funded (both for travel and for > food/accom bursaries) is not and should never be public > information. Prospective approaches to sponsors should also be kept > secret as well. > > Proposed talks and activities are also quite sensitive, IMO. As Holger > says, we have always handled this process in private, and I don't > expect us to change it soon. An important part of a conference is > coming up with the best possible lineup of talks as a coherent, > planned schedule, and that unfortunately means rejecting some.
I have always wondered about this. I am not arguing for or against anything, just trying to understand, and I suspect help others understand too. Can someone elaborate on why "unfortunately means rejecting some." is a reason to keep anything about this secret? > >> > My worry is, with this "closed source" model, maybe many valuable >> > talk/event ideas will be missed/skipped/lost/not understood therefore >> > discarded. >> >> there's always lightning talks. > > There are many options for people whose talks are not approved. First > and foremost, we have the "self-scheduled talks". Main differences? > > 1. They are not part of the official schedule, announced a couple of > weeks before the conference > > 2. They are usually held in smaller rooms, although sometimes they can > take a space in our "official" rooms (although this often only > happens when there was a cancellation, or with the few "holes" we > didn't fill in the schedule) > > 3. They do not have video recording nor streaming (as we cannot afford > enough video gear and, mostly, volunteers to cover them). > > You can see last year's schedule¹ — Everything scheduled in the Potato > and Woody rooms was self-scheduled. You can look at the details of the > process in the announcement I made to debconf-announce². I guess a > similar scheme can work this year. > > ¹ https://debconf17.debconf.org/schedule/ > ² https://lists.debian.org/debconf-announce/2017/08/msg00002.html > >> > Nor is there any "public oversight" process where we can see if it was >> > 90 out of 100 ideas were rejected, of just 2 out of 12, etc. >> >> you are free to join the content team. > > Yes, you are free and welcome to join us. > > - Gunnar > Content Team
