On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Jesse Barker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Joey STANFORD <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >>> I'd like to expand on this and bring up that I think Connect needs to move >>> away from planning based on individual teams to cross-organizational >>> tracks. I think this will alleviate of the scheduling pressure we had this >>> time >>> and create a more cohesive experience for everyone involved. So instead >>> of having a bunch of random sessions in one day, we could have 3 tracks per >>> day (ex: Android Upstreaming, Neon Optimizations, KVM) and we can have >>> sessions from any groups that are relevant to that topic. This would mean >>> that on certain days some groups may not have a session scheduled but >>> I think that's OK. >> >> Interesting idea. >> >> Doing this has some advantages: >> >> * You don't need summit's "maximize attendee session time" algorithm >> and could get by fine without it. >> >> * Topic based tracks pulls the entire organization together to work >> on epic projects, which I suspect is the way we want to move to. It >> points us towards organization goals vs individual and team goals. >> >> * Since you're working on topics, the ability to callout what those >> sessions are should become much easier and can be done much earlier. >> This would also eliminate the need for the Sunday night "let's huddle >> and fix the schedule" activity. Even if we kept it, I suspect it would >> go dramatically quicker. >> >> * We'd see a reduction in meeting rooms but an increase in >> fishbowl/circular ballroom size rooms. Hangouts would be easier since >> there would be less machines to care for each hour but we would have >> need for additional microphones. >> >> >> There is one big challenge I can see... >> >> * Big rooms, lots of people, lots of interruptions. 50 minutes might >> not be enough so perhaps we'd need to double the session time. This >> would mean two large sessions per track per day (since we only do this >> in the morning) for a total of 6 big sessions a day. I often have >> felt that a 50 minute session time is too short for productive work >> anyway. Basically we could run each session like a 2 hour >> mini-summit. Each session would likely need to have several topics >> but that's par for course a lot of the time now. >> >> >> I can accommodate networking, scheduler, and AV for this without a >> problem. It /might/ be difficult finding a place with larger style >> rooms though. It's challenging to reconfigure the plenary style room >> to something that work for this format. > > Isn't this basically how Linux Plumbers is run (with half-day > microconferences), and don't we have some experts from the LPC > planning committee available to us to find out how they do it > (assuming this is actually what we want to do)?
It is similar to Plumbers. And we do have experts - Paul McKenney is chair for this year's event and Grant is involved in the organising committee as well. And Vincent and I will let you all know our experiences running the scheduler mini-conference in August. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~linaro-project-management Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~linaro-project-management More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
