I can as well. On 4/29/11 9:15 AM, "Marlon Pierce" <[email protected]> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >I can skype. > >On 4/29/11 9:12 AM, Ate Douma wrote: >> On 04/29/2011 02:23 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >>> That¹s what I get for typing an e-mail at a stop light :) >>> >>> What I was trying to say was that I think the highest value >>>presentation >>> is the general discussion of what Rave is, where it came from, what our >>> goals are, etc. What I was thinking is we would have one larger talk >>> that >>> is more project and community focused >> +1, that fits with what I had in mind for the first talk. >> >>> and a technical training where we >>> walk people through how they can apply and develop for Rave in their >>>own >>> organizations. In this setting we can explore the technologies and >>> options for building widgets. >> I'm not completely sure what you mean with training, but training >> sessions on the ApacheCon are different than "normal" presentations. >> Usually two days before or after the formal 3 day conference are >> reserved for these training sessions, which each may range from 0.5, 1 >> or 2 days. >> More importantly though: a participant has to pay separately to join a >> training *and* for a training to be accepted and executed at least a >> minimum number of (paying) participants is required. In the past this >> usually was 9+. >> >> So, while a training session definitely might be cool, even if accepted >> there is no guarantee upfront you actually get to do it... >> >> Anyway, I'm absolutely fine if you want to propose such a training >> session, but I'd still like to see a technical oriented *talk* as well >> to address and reach the full potential of the ApacheCON visitors not >> just those willing to pay extra for a training. >> >>> >>> I am willing to submit whatever proposals need submitting, but I >>> definitely want to participate in the overview talk; maybe as a second >>> (or >>> third) speaker to Ate? >> >> I'd definitely like a joined presentation. I've done so several times in >> the past (also ApacheCON) it it really works well if each (or more) can >> focus on different aspects. Also more entertaining for the audience, if >> done well :) >> >> Lets try to work this out today, I'll be available on skype shortly (+/- >> 30 min. from now), anyone else willing to join please just ping me/us. >> >> Ate >> >>> >>> On 4/29/11 8:06 AM, "Franklin, Matthew B."<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I remembered a couple of days ago and was planning on submitting one >>>> today too. Do you think splitting them is best? I was h >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 05:30 AM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: ApacheCON NA 2011 CFP: deadline today! >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I almost missed it but suddenly realized I haven't seen any feedback >>>> anymore >>>> about presenting Rave at the ApacheCON NA 2011 (Vancouver) later this >>>> year. >>>> >>>> As the CFP deadline end *today* (midnight Pacific Time), I want to >>>>check >>>> if >>>> anyone did send in a proposal. >>>> I remember Matt chiming in before indicating he was willing to come up >>>> with >>>> something? >>>> >>>> Assuming nobody has send in anything yet, I think we maybe could >>>>propose >>>> two >>>> separate talks: >>>> >>>> a) Rave Overview and Role (high-level/non-technical): >>>> history >>>> community >>>> goals >>>> future >>>> >>>> b) Rave Technical: >>>> background (e.g. originating projects, current usages/examples) >>>> architecture >>>> features (small demos) >>>> goals (functional and technical) >>>> roadmap >>>> final grant demo >>>> >>>> Assuming Matt or others might be interested and might have a >>>>preference >>>> for the >>>> technical talk, I'm inclined to pitch for the first one and write up a >>>> proposal >>>> for that today. But if someone else has a preference to pick that one >>>>up >>>> just >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> I only want to make sure we're covering both (type of) talks, so if >>>> nobody else >>>> can or want to jump in, I'm even willing to send in proposals for >>>>both. >>>> >>>> Please chime in ASAP *today* if/when you are willing to participate in >>>> this, or >>>> already did :) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ate >>> >> >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > >iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNurn3AAoJEOEgD2XReDo5RL4H/2SJkf9tevp1Ey4WdBiF0awx >hA5bNcz1nuVM6j0fPYJKSpERDsTSH82X9T5zd0Q+S45n1dVyTK/1sAz7+c+01HVq >8RH1c0NSYod4NH7We2L3ET60bzkDCcXEW/bUVmiRQsijEx8EcvXHASVNj/L6LymU >CXXcf9aijEiOtWiLVAmygL69FlgVrWdQI5f4WqQNQvb8/z+9WKVQdPdNACwVxj1K >tt0x6r3rrtImrJ3oJ+Q1sIxivO81ZvV+IrOfsihadIsgf7G2HMD/hdQ1KKj+LDDw >mHEpAJKB4fYTnj057Vu+o3N8b26CLbfHI0LeTZ1nbz6nCxuwGcnEDE9JIBi+R84= >=mZH1 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
