On 19 February 2015 at 16:39, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Re pushing out to PMCs. Historically this has not been a good idea. Once > you have 200+ PMCs and PPMCs fighting over 200+ slots you get a horribly > disjointed program with no real value. > > This is one reason why I want LF to set the theme. We can then create a > smaller list of PMCs that fit the theme. > Which is going to happen for next AC. That is actually part of what I want by having track-chair very early in the process....and they will then push the requiered PMCs for talks. rgds jan I. > > My as yet unspoken hope is that we will then end up with multiple > ApacheCons each year, something like "ApacheCon: Big Data", "ApacheCon: > Applications", "ApacheCon: Cloud". However we need to give LF time to walk > before we ask them to consider running (I believe that time has now passed > and will make this suggestion in Austin when we debrief. > > Rss > > -----Original Message----- > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:29 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: ApacheCon Schedule > > On 19 February 2015 at 15:05, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > For those not involved in the process so far, I appreciate your > > patience, and your suffering in the dark. Making the schedule public > > too early caused significant logistical problems last two times > > (people thinking they knew things that they didn't know, and making > > travel plans accordingly), and we want to avoid that nightmare this time > around. > > > > For those involved in the process so far: > > > > It looks like we're done with the ApacheCon schedule. Sort of. We've > > got 7 tracks, three days, which I think is probably just the right > volume. > > > > Please look at the DRAFT schedule, and comment in this thread. I, for > > one, think we have a kickin' schedule. > > > > Problems that I think still need solving: > > > > * We have an empty spot in the community track. Given that community > > is what we *do*, it seems that we could come up with 6 community talks > > to schedule, and have a few fallbacks. If folks could look through the > > not-yet-accepted list with me and see what you can find, that would be > > awesome. > > > I did not find what I thought was a really strong community talk. > > > > > * We have 16 open slots. We don't need to fill all of them - we need > > to leave 6 or 7 slots open for vendor-sponsored talks (Don't worry, > > these will NOT be product pitches) which will show up over the coming > > weeks. (LF's problem, not ours.) But I think we can probably put > > together a few half-day tracks if we put our minds to it. We have an > > entire day/track on Wednesday, if someone still thinks that they can > > put together a complete track (6 talks). > > > > * We need more wait-listed talks. We currently have 6 waitlisted > > talks, and I'm probably going to take several of those right now to > > fill in some empties. > > > I am now on my second iteration, to mark talks as wait-listed. The > definition is pretty simple, it need to be an unscheduled talk (of course) > and the speaker must have an accepted talk. > > > > > > * We have the problem that's not a problem, which is that we had 239 > > submissions, and have only accepted 115 talks - less than half. So > > we'll get a LOT of "why wasn't my talk accepted" emails, and I never > > have very good answers to that, because the answer really is, this > > time, too much content, too little space. But the questions will come, > > and that's a very unsatisfying answer to people that have put time and > > effort into crafting talk abstracts. > > > This is really a good argument for pushing more out to the PMCs and have > track chairs, who start before CFP officially opens, so they can help > create the right talks. > > I take this as a lesson learned. To be fair the track-chair idea worked > better than I thought, and next time we know to push harder for that. > > > > > > > > If you would like to help with any of these things, please get in > > touch with me. Or, just step up and claim it and do it. > > > > Note that I will be flying for much of today, and at a conference > > Friday-Sunday, so if I'm not responsive, please ping Jan Iversen, who > > can also help you out with this - although apparently I can't make him > > Owner of the Google Doc, so actually sharing the doc with you will be > > delayed, unless you respond in the next 3 hours. > > > thats me :-) > > I will be available the next couple of days, and try also to be on IRC as > much as possible....sadly enough sharing is left to Rich. > > rgds > jan i > > > > -- > > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - > > @apachecon > > >
