On 19 February 2015 at 17:05, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I just added 4 sessions. There is one more for the community track if Joe > wants it (not in CFP). So there is space for a 6 session track from Hadrian. > Thanks. If you have the time, and joe wants the talk (I assume you coordinate directly), then please send me a mail with information as per columns in the spreadsheet, then I will get it added to CFP. rgds jan i. > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: jan i<mailto:j...@apache.org> > Sent: 2/19/2015 7:59 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > Subject: Re: ApacheCon Schedule > > On 19 February 2015 at 16:49, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Traditionally we had an integration track at ApacheCon. I volunteered to > > run it this year, but there was virtually no answer from the PMCs. > > > I see however that there are more than enough proposals to put together a 6 > > talks integration track for Wed. If I could get a second, I'll get on it > > and have it done probably before the end of the day. > > > > Rich is boarding his plane now, but I am fine with such a track...but > please coordinate the number of free spaces with Ross, so we avoid double > bookings. > > rgds > jan i > > > > > > Cheers > > Hadrian > > > > > > > > > > On 02/19/2015 10:29 AM, jan i wrote: > > > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > > >
