Re: [guadec-list] conference software
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Tobias Mueller wrote: > On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 19:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Tobias Mueller > e> wrote: >> As far as I know, the schedule format was defined by Pentabarf and >> nowadays many other applications implement it > Including OSEM? ;-) Yes. Sorry, I should have mentioned it. ☺ > I consider this good reasoning. > FWIW: I didn't intend to recommend one software or advise against > another. But rather refute statements that I believe are wrong in order > to help making a better decision. I assumed that was one of the things > the original message intended to provoke. 👍 > You seem to be all set More or less, the question of the hosting and sysadmin is still in the air. > but if you're looking for suggestions as to what > features your software should have, I recommend ranking a static export > high on your list of things to look out for. Not only will it make > deployment much easier, but it will also make archiving the whole thing > very easy. Agreed, this is important. I don’t know if OSEM already does it. I’ll check and ask for this feature if it’s not already present. > Because GNOME.Asia Summit didn't use OSEM for the last couple of years. Oh. I’ll get in touch with the OSEM people to check why they claim we did. -- Alexandre Franke GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] conference software
Hi. On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 19:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Tobias Mueller e> wrote: > As far as I know, the schedule format was defined by Pentabarf and > nowadays many other applications implement it Including OSEM? ;-) > There are a few alternatives on the market and we could bikeshed for a > while without reaching an agreement. I investigated OSEM and it does > what we need, looks good and easy to use. It fits our requirements and > the developers are listening to user feedback. I heartily recommend > switching to it. > I consider this good reasoning. FWIW: I didn't intend to recommend one software or advise against another. But rather refute statements that I believe are wrong in order to help making a better decision. I assumed that was one of the things the original message intended to provoke. You seem to be all set, but if you're looking for suggestions as to what features your software should have, I recommend ranking a static export high on your list of things to look out for. Not only will it make deployment much easier, but it will also make archiving the whole thing very easy. > > > Secondly, GNOME.Asia has already used OSEM for the past couple of > > > years. > > wait, what? This is plain wrong. > > How so? Because GNOME.Asia Summit didn't use OSEM for the last couple of years. Cheers, Tobi ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
