23:04:03 #startmeeting talks team: the final cut 23:04:03 Meeting started Wed Jun 2 23:04:03 2010 UTC. The chair is dkg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:04:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 23:04:06 <_hc> are we still waiting? if so I'll hop on over to micah's 23:04:08 <_hc> oops 23:04:33 #info present: _hc, dkg, micah, DrDub_, Hydroxide 23:05:00 is suspect there will be a bit of discussion 23:05:03 followed by a bit of busywork 23:05:07 #link http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#talks_team_meeting_Wednesday_2010-06-02_23:00UTC__.287pm_NYC_time.29 23:05:08 followed by a lot of discussion 23:05:17 so if you want to scoot over during the busywork 23:05:23 that would be resaonable 23:05:38 we should discuss agenda before we dive into the agenda 23:05:43 indeed 23:05:51 that's the first bit of discussion ;) 23:06:03 * Hydroxide is fine with what's on the wiki 23:06:30 i'm going to assume that everyonehasread the agenda micah linked to 23:06:44 i think we need to talk about the BoFs and number of talks that ana had come up with 23:06:45 there are a few open questions hidden in there between the lines 23:07:00 micah: agreed; and the plenaries 23:07:23 yeah 23:07:34 can we start with the plenaries? 23:07:49 i think that's relatively non-controversial, since it was raised on debconf-team@ 23:07:57 ok 23:08:15 (i'm thinking we're still discussing the agenda here, not diving in) 23:08:24 #topic agenda overview 23:08:39 i think we're all ok with plenaries 23:08:40 so is the idea to talk about the general idea of plenaries? 23:08:51 i think we will need to decide exactly which talks are going to be plenaries 23:08:54 and not the cut process first subitem on the agenda? 23:09:01 micah: yes: 23:09:07 ok 23:09:18 any objections to that being the first stage of the actual cut process? 23:09:39 * Hydroxide doesn't mind but also doesn't want to spend too much meta-time because then this will be a 2-hour or 3-hour meeting 23:09:53 so let's do it briefly 23:09:58 ok, no objections there. 23:10:13 number of talks: 23:10:31 (that's micah's 2nd meta-point) 23:10:44 i'm proposing that we are scheduling 7 1hr sessions per day. 23:11:37 aha 23:11:54 what's there to debate? 23:11:55 dkg: is that the same schedule as part 1b of http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/SessionChairProposal ? (ignore the rest of the page) 23:12:13 <_hc> 1 hour sessions sound long to me 23:12:52 _hc: if you include time for people to set up, answer questions, clean up, and transition between sessions, and also realize that people don't have to use the whole hour, it's much more reasonable 23:13:20 <_hc> I've been to many a conference, but not debconf, and none had hour sessions 23:13:22 we are also scheduling 2 rooms 23:13:31 _hc: what duration would you suggest? 23:13:38 <_hc> 20-30 min and 45 seem typical 23:13:44 <_hc> short/long 23:13:53 _hc: DebConf routinely has talks that go longer than 20-30 minutes - that would be a very brief talk 23:14:02 can someone link to a previous schedule? 23:14:06 sure 23:14:17 https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/ 23:14:18 _hc: academics are a lot more practice at conveying information quickly 23:14:19 <_hc> Hydroxide: brevity is the soul of wit 23:14:21 <_hc> ;) 23:14:24 +d 23:14:40 <_hc> panels/workshops/discussions work in an hour 23:14:47 <_hc> but I don't think talks do 23:15:00 <_hc> it encourages people to ramble, time pressure is good for almost all speakers 23:15:01 _hc: I wouldn't suggest vastly reducing them from previous DebConfs 23:15:27 it will also make the process easier if we just assume all talks are 1hr 23:15:30 _hc: then there's the issue of language barriers, questions, heated discussions in reaction to the talk, technical issues, etc 23:15:37 as people *do* ramble etc. and we'll just have everyone overrun and complain at us for why we made them so short 23:15:40 https://penta.debconf.org/dc8_schedule/ is two years ago 23:15:48 it's fine if sessions finish early 23:15:59 people can take a break, get food, hack, etc. 23:16:02 <_hc> no, we should run things on time, running things late just screws people who are scheduled later 23:16:21 _hc: agreed, we should run things on time 23:16:26 i don't think that's at issue. 23:16:42 * micah suggests we get back to the agenda 23:16:43 #info _hc thinks talks should not be scheduled for 1 hr 23:16:43 <_hc> I am a fan of being pretty strict, with a timer, and 10/5/1 minute warnings to the speaker 23:16:48 _hc: if we want to run things on time AND we don't want to cut off a large number of events before a reasonable conclusion, we can't go much shorter than an hour 23:17:01 can we just assume for the meoment that talks are 1 hr 23:17:04 _hc: no one suggested letting things overrun 23:17:07 so that we know how many we need to cut? 23:17:10 i think its a little late to make talks less than an hour 23:17:11 i'd like to keep moving. 23:17:11 i do like 1h 23:17:18 micah: yeah 23:17:20 we've got a long process ahead. 23:17:23 k 23:17:28 #info everyone else thinks that we should make the slots 1h but not require every talk to use the whole time 23:17:33 * Hydroxide agrees with dkg 23:17:33 we can always shorten specific items. 23:17:49 <_hc> enough said, 1 hour is it 23:17:56 * moray is Not Here, btw, too late at night :/ 23:18:03 so if we have 6 plenaries, then we have 6*6*2 1hr slots == 72 23:18:24 what are those 3 numbers? 23:18:26 dkg: are you scheduling stuff during debcamp too? 23:18:33 Hydroxide: no 23:18:36 oh, two rooms 23:18:45 6 slots per day * 6 talk days * 2 rooms 23:18:52 micah: 6 1hr slots left in the day (1hr was taken up by plenary) 23:18:52 not counting the plenaries 23:18:57 6 talk days 23:18:58 2 rooms 23:19:01 right. 23:19:22 dkg: so this looks indeed like 1b from http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/SessionChairProposal (interpreting "2 hour slot" as "2 one-hour talk slots"). 23:19:25 if we have 3 plenaries, then we have (3*7 + 3*6)*2 = 84 talks 23:19:56 Hydroxide: sounds about right 23:20:02 but i'm not committing to any scheduling 23:20:13 in particular, i find early morning plenaries sadistic :p 23:20:20 :) 23:20:35 so, of the meta-items, that just leaves BoFs 23:20:38 ok 23:21:04 (3*7 + 3*6)*2 = 78 23:21:24 micah: thanks, dunno how i got that. 23:21:42 #info 3 plenaries: 78 talks; 6 plenaries: 72 talks 23:22:00 what's the meta-question about BoFs? 23:22:01 so we have a third room that BoFs can go in, with the exception of those that want v-t coverage 23:22:12 some BoFs are also part of a track 23:22:18 Schapiro is the room name 23:22:19 ah 23:22:26 and i believe the idea is that tracks will retain physical space and contiguous time slots 23:22:40 so BoFs in a track probably shouldn't get moved to Schapiro 23:22:55 also, if we are doing a cut process, based on 2 rooms, we maybe should put the BoFs off to the side for a different cut process 23:22:56 well, I don't think we need to worry about location or timing 23:22:58 that's a separate question 23:23:11 we need to worry about our cut numbers basically 23:23:12 right 23:23:21 we also don't know whether a given BoF wants v-t coverage. 23:23:26 yes, my track wants to kickoff with bof 23:23:43 DrDub_: and it would be silly to do that in one room, and then have to schlep to another. 23:23:44 I suggest that we don't separate out BoFs from anything else for this review process 23:23:45 we wont know that until we make some changes that ana suggested earlier to penta and ask bof submitters to indicate that 23:23:55 micah: right 23:23:56 * Hydroxide doesn't see why BoF versus other format is relevant here 23:24:09 can we agree that tracks with BoFs shouldn't move BoFs to Shapiro? 23:24:20 <_hc> works for me 23:24:24 micah: I don't agree that it's even relevant to this meeting, even if that's possibly good for the schedulers 23:24:27 #agreed BoFs within tracks shouldn't be placed in Schapiro 23:24:28 yes, please 23:24:29 can we agree that tracks with BoFs shouldn't move their BoFs to Shapiro? 23:24:45 sorry just added a word to clarify 23:24:58 #info Hydroxide doubts the relevance to this meeting of room/timing choices 23:25:13 fair 23:25:15 hydroxide: we have 72 talks to choose from, but that is based on 2 rooms 23:25:20 Hydroxide: the relevance is in the number of talks we can accept for scheduling in the main rooms 23:25:29 but there r plenty of bofs 23:25:39 micah, dkg: I think we should just schedule stuff for the two main rooms independent of type of talk 23:25:46 some are small 23:25:49 err 23:25:52 correction 23:25:55 i see 23:25:57 DrDub_: right; micah's point is that if BoFs get moved to schapiro, we can accept more of the other talks. 23:26:04 I think we should just pick 72 talks without worrying about BoF/non-BoF status 23:26:06 we can also cut less of the BoFs 23:26:09 but 23:26:29 but I also think that we can let schapiro be used by any talk that wants it 23:26:36 well small ones can b rejected from big rooms, yes 23:26:47 if we are going to do that, then we should change our calculations to use 3 rooms instead of 2 23:26:57 * Hydroxide doesn't feel this meeting is conducive to having this discussion for the very first time and wishes we had discussed this via email sooner... :( 23:27:02 micah: in that case, we don't have enough talks ;) 23:27:21 Hydroxide: this only came up today, i think 23:27:34 i agree it would have been better earlier 23:27:38 such is life :( 23:27:41 I'm proposing that the "officially selected talks" be based on two rooms, with the understanding that additional talks that want to occur can fill in gaps in the schedule or use schapiro 23:27:54 and I'm proposing ignoring BoF or non-BoF status for today's meeting 23:28:08 I don't think we do have enough talks to schedule based on three rooms, as dkg said 23:28:19 friendly amendment: BoFs that get cut today or are in the "middle third" get first pick at slots in Schapiro. 23:28:38 if you think it's important, I don't object 23:28:46 also friendly amendment: we've been asked not to use 'official/unofficial' as labels 23:28:49 I don't see it as relevant to this meeting at all 23:28:50 micah: sure 23:29:25 Hydroxide: i'm curious about your reasoning? 23:29:50 #agreed we will accept talks (BoFs and non-BoFs) today only for scheduling in the two main rooms; BoFs that are rejected today will get first pick at time slots in Schapiro 23:29:51 ie. why base on two rooms, instead of 3, when some BoFs are clearly going to be too small to be in either of the two big rooms 23:29:55 ok, summary: "talks selected by the talks team will be done based on the assumption of two scheduled rooms. the talks team will encourage the scheduling team to give priority in schapiro to BoFs that we don't include in our list" 23:29:55 err wait 23:29:57 i wasn't agreeing 23:30:17 dkg: you're a bit trigger-happy with #agreed :) 23:30:40 micah: I don't think it's the talks team's place to make scheduling decisions 23:30:43 ok, sorry 23:30:53 i'm not scheduling 23:31:07 micah: and in terms of room allocation, it's fine for some of the slots to use schapiro and smaller-talk-room 23:31:15 i'm saying why would we pick or not pick BoFs based on them being in the two rooms that they would not be in 23:31:18 according to the teams breakdown, it actually does fall under the talks team. but that's not what this meeting is about. 23:31:21 micah: or schapiro and larger-talk-room but not smaller-talk-room 23:32:03 there is a BoF room, and then there are 'talks' rooms, those are based on expected attendance at those types of events 23:32:20 micah: that's not how I'd classify the difference 23:32:26 micah: some BoFs are large, some talks are small 23:32:31 micah: we know that some BoFs are not going to be in Schapiro 23:32:34 if we have a BoF that will be only 3 people, then why would we pick it or not for the main auditorium? 23:32:41 i think it is a mistake to call Schapiro a BoF room. 23:32:49 micah: we wouldn't - we are not the scheduling team 23:32:59 Hydroxide: there is no scheduling team 23:33:00 this has nothing to do with timing selection 23:33:05 dkg: no, it just hasn't been assembled yet 23:33:06 this has to do with physical space 23:33:11 dkg: we've had various offers of help 23:33:13 and the calculation for choosing numbers of talks 23:33:28 dkg: it's never inherently automatically the talks team 23:33:42 http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Teams has it under the talks team 23:33:45 that's what i'm going on. 23:33:51 what about accepting all bof and asking the submitterbjhow much space they need? 23:34:11 dkg: so are lots of other things that aren't being done by us. anyway, this is a tangent 23:34:24 dkg: this is definitely not a scheduling meeting 23:34:27 DrDub_: how are we going to know if we can accomodate them if they are large if we don't plan for a slot in one of the main rooms? 23:34:38 Hydroxide: agreed, but we need to know what number of talks to arrive at. 23:34:44 my proposal is that we as the 'talks' team do not make selections at this meeting if the event is a BoF, unless it is part of a track. 23:35:00 i'm proposing that we can make this meeting relatively simple by deciding that we are only scheduling for the two main rooms. 23:35:01 we select talks today for the two rooms, and then look at what the BoF situation is 23:35:16 micah: that doesn't make sense at all. there are BoFs that are well-attended, want video, and aren't part of a track 23:35:22 micah: e.g., SPI BoF, at least judging by last year 23:35:33 i swear we had this discussion today already :) 23:35:41 were there tracks last year? 23:35:45 dkg: what about we rank them and then we assign them based on need., 23:35:48 ...? 23:35:49 Clint: no, but it's not part of a track this year 23:37:30 micah: so, what's the obstacle to accepting 72 or 78 talks+BoFs now, giving preference in the case of BoFs to ones that are part of a track but not making it a criterion? then the scheduling people will figure out the best room allocation for those among the three rooms, and everything else can fill in the gaps 23:37:32 DrDub_: do we know what their need is? 23:37:41 micah: yes that means we won't use every single room every single slot 23:37:46 micah: that's not a problem IMHO 23:38:13 dkg: my comment was to ask them.... 23:38:30 micah: then it would be the scheduler's job to figure out what the individual talks need in terms of space 23:38:38 DrDub_: we don't have that information now, and we're extremely late in telling people whether their talks were accepted for scheduling 23:38:46 we need to make those decisions 23:39:07 dkg: my bad. i understand 23:39:08 the schedulers will also have to take into account people who are here for only part of the conference, too 23:40:01 dkg: my feeling is 50% of bof will be fine in shapiro 23:40:24 i think it is a mistake to choose a real BoF for one of the two main rooms that isn't part of a track. but i would rather go ahead and not fight this anymore 23:40:54 <_hc> (I don't have an opinion on this bof topic, so I'm going to scoot over the micah's right now, back online in 10) 23:41:01 see ya soon 23:41:02 micah: there's nothing inherent in the BoF format that implies automatically that it won't be worth videoing unless it's part of a track 23:41:14 Hydroxide: i'm not arguing it anymore 23:41:15 micah: your definition of "BoF" seems to be "needs small space, does not want v-t coverage"; given that we don't know which things visibly named "BoF" meet those criteria, i propose we4 move forward 23:41:16 micah: though DrDub_ is right that more BoFs than non-BoFs don't need video 23:41:19 ok 23:41:33 * Hydroxide suggests we move on then 23:42:12 dkg: i would put it as "needs small space, does not need v-t coverage" 23:42:31 Clint: fair enough. we don't have that information either :p 23:42:46 dkg, Clint: we have a definition of BoF on our glossary 23:42:49 and it's quite different from that 23:42:50 http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/TalkGlossary 23:43:18 micah: i'm expecting the 50+ who requested travel sponsorship to attend the travel bof 23:43:35 fewer of those are popular and/or worth videoing than other categories of event, but enough are 23:43:39 anyway 23:43:40 micah said he wants to move on 23:43:49 it's already 43 minutes into the meeting 23:43:50 let's move on 23:43:51 :) 23:43:52 yup 23:44:00 #topic plenaries 23:44:07 so we need to select 3 to 6 plenaries 23:44:23 these are going to be events that have nothing scheduled concurrently 23:44:26 3 23:44:27 can we assume that the opening and closing plenaries are accepted and then just choose 1 to 4 more? 23:44:29 and will be in the main auditorium. 23:44:36 * micah agress with Hydroxide 23:44:43 Hydroxide: i agree 23:44:46 yay 23:44:51 any objections to those two plenaries? 23:44:56 agreed 23:44:56 DrDub_: are you stating a preference? 23:45:02 re: 3 23:45:15 #agreed opening and closing plenaries are accepted. 23:45:18 sorry, yes, my pref is fewer 23:45:23 hope that wasn't too trigger-happy 23:45:30 proposals for a 3rd? 23:45:35 i propose Eben Moglen 23:45:41 * micah agrees 23:45:42 I was going to suggest either Eben or bkuhn, yes 23:45:45 Eben is fine with me 23:45:45 i also propose Bits from the DPL 23:45:48 melikes 23:45:57 dkg: ok, that's 4 - sounds like a reasonable number 23:46:05 * micah agrees with bits from the DPL 23:46:12 i'd like to propose mako's talk 23:46:13 metoo 23:46:21 we've got four open proposals: DPL, Eben, bkuhn, mako 23:46:26 and at most 4 slots ;) 23:46:39 micah: which is his? 23:46:39 * micah reviewing the list of talks 23:46:44 Hydroxide: revealing errors 23:47:07 ubuntu-debian by jorge then 23:47:12 i vouch 23:47:26 micah: I think that's quite interesting and might well attend myself, but I don't think it's more plenary-worthy than many other things that have happened in conjunction with other talks at past years 23:47:43 micah: it probably would be a main-room event though 23:48:20 any objection to DPL? 23:48:25 no 23:48:35 * Hydroxide thinks we've unanimously agreed on opening + closing + DPL + Eben 23:48:48 k 23:48:51 and are still trying to decide on 0-2 others. I'm fine withdrawing the bkuhn suggestion 23:48:56 i could see bkhun being a plenary too, but I'm somewhat unsure 23:48:59 since we have enough others including another SFLC person (Eben) 23:49:20 Hydroxide: i've seen mako's talk before at LCA, it was very well received 23:49:23 nobody else for jorge castro? 23:49:25 micah: I'm sure. 23:49:32 micah: as I said, I'm quite interested myself 23:49:32 #agreed Bits from the DPL will be a plenary 23:49:37 also at our previous talks meeting we talked about asking mako to do this talk for a plenary session 23:49:44 Any objections to Eben being a plenary? 23:49:46 or rather we agreed to ask him to submit it 23:50:10 eben yes 23:50:17 micah: although, the fact that DebConf and LCA attendances have significant overlap means that a bunch of people who saw it at LCA might want a different talk to attend at the same slot 23:50:24 micah: even if they would have seen it if they hadn't gone to LCA 23:51:11 i'm not sure how to reconcile this with our previous meeting where we agreed to ask mako to consider doing a plenary 23:51:16 s/a/this as a 23:51:25 #agreed Eben moglen's talk is a plenary 23:51:33 micah: easy - we didn't have the full list of talks at that point 23:51:34 micah: i thought we wanted to invite mako to talk 23:51:43 i wasn't aware that we were inviting mako to do a plenary 23:51:57 * Hydroxide also doesn't remember specifically urging mako to do a plenary, but doesn't have a certain enough memory to deny that we said that either 23:52:02 we're at 4 plenaries 23:52:07 folks were arguing for 3 earlier 23:52:22 :-) 23:52:28 3 is good 23:52:31 outstanding proposals are: mako and jorge 23:52:36 if you look at the log from last meeting, we were clearing fishing for other plenary ideas 23:53:27 I'd also be interested in jorge's talk but worry that it might send the wrong message if we make it a plenary. (e.g. "did canonical pay for that? why aren't we making nexenta's talk a plenary? etc etc") 23:53:42 as with mako's, I'll probably attend if I have the time 23:53:51 and then azeem suggested we ask mako, and people agreed to do that 23:54:24 is the definition still that you assume that no one else would go to anything conflicting, or has this "plenary" label taken on a new connotation? 23:54:42 <_hc> plenary means no conflicts AFAIK 23:54:47 Clint: plenary means "nothing is scheduled to conflict" 23:54:55 right, based on which criteria 23:54:58 but there is no mandatory attendance. 23:55:05 Hydroxide: they "payed" by reciprocicating 23:55:10 i think mako and jorge would be fun plenaries 23:55:36 my feeling is eitherb both or not 23:55:43 Clint: based on us deciding right now, using our judgement, i think :p 23:55:48 judgment of what? 23:55:55 what do you think should be a plenary? 23:56:04 micah: the log says "biella will suggest that mako submit a proposal" and a couple of lines later "we are not agreed on whether we want a daily plenary" and a couple lines later "dkg will re-open plenary question on debconf-team@" 23:56:18 micah: doesn't sound like we had even finalized what a plenary would be at that point, let alone guaranteed one to anyone. 23:56:31 yes, and then we discussed it on the list 23:56:31 i've already given you my arguments on debconf-team@, Clint 23:56:33 dkg: i can assign my own logic to the four agreed upon so far, so i guess i would go with those 23:56:56 Hydroxide: we *did* agree on a definition for plenary. 23:56:57 we were fishing for 6 plenaries at the last meeting, some joke ones were suggesgted 23:57:23 micah: at that meeting we explicitly hadn't decided that we wanted 6 23:57:29 anyway 23:57:36 it's now nearly an hour into the meeting 23:57:41 can we just do a straight-up vote and move on? 23:57:42 what Windows 7™ can do for you 23:57:45 the objections for not having jorge do a plenary is that it might send a bad message? and the objection for mako is that people have seen it? 23:57:48 that would be an awesome plenary 23:57:48 i don't even knowb what mako talk is about! 23:58:23 micah: no, that wasn't my primary reason for mako's. I gave another reason first which I think is more important 23:58:44 * Hydroxide moves to vote 23:58:53 * Hydroxide doesn't want this to be a 3-hour meeting 23:58:56 Hydroxide: are you proposing something voteable? 23:59:31 hm, coming up with options is hard :) 23:59:47 "mako + jorge" vs "neither of them as plenaries, without prejudice to selection as a non-plenary" 23:59:54 i.e. both or neither 00:00:15 neither 00:00:31 * Hydroxide is really not trying to railroad anything through other than keeping some vaguely sane time limit on this meeting. Promise. 00:01:04 how about voting on one at a time? 00:01:17 micah: is there anyone who wants exactly one of them? nobody proposed that 00:01:25 i dont know unless people vote 00:01:40 micah: one vote might affect the second... 00:01:41 both have been proposed, so I think we should treat each individually 00:01:44 getting mako and not jorge sends the wrong signal 00:02:01 DrDub_: what kind of signal is that? 00:02:12 ok, in the interest of moving on 00:02:26 four way vote, pick one: "both, mako only, jorge only, neither" 00:02:37 micah: a signal about mixed criteria 00:02:37 that seems reasonable. 00:02:52 except that people might want to rank and use condorcet :p 00:03:41 my vote goes to neither 00:04:01 #link https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/642 00:04:02 that is makos 00:04:05 * Clint proposes a GR to ban plenaries. 00:04:12 #link https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/636 00:04:15 that is jorge's 00:04:17 micah: I read it, and I've read his blogs about it too 00:04:40 likewise with jorge's. 00:04:45 Clint: I rather that than mako and not jorge 00:04:46 I'm very interested in both as talks 00:04:50 but that's separte 00:04:53 *separate 00:04:58 so far the only person who has voted is DrDub 00:05:07 the chair didn't call for a vote 00:05:14 * Hydroxide votes neither (was hoping micah would either vote or say something else) 00:05:18 * micah kicks clint from the meeting he is not attending 00:05:28 i like Clint's non-attendance 00:05:29 * Clint slinks away. 00:05:32 * micah votes both 00:05:32 i'm calling for the 4-way vote 00:05:39 Clint: come visit to WP! 00:05:45 dkg: right. so far we have two neither, one both 00:05:50 i'm abstaining, i think. 00:05:54 <_hc> hmm, vacilating, I vote yes on Jorge, but don't care on mako 00:06:28 _hc: heh, you're taking a fifth position in a four-way vote? 00:06:33 <_hc> guess so :) 00:07:34 i count 2+ and 2- for mako and 3+ and 2- for jorge 00:08:07 sorry: i count 1+ and 2- for mako and 2+ and 2- for jorge 00:08:20 heh, I count 2 for neither and 1 for two of each of the other options voted 00:08:25 yay unspecified voting :) 00:08:26 anyway 00:08:50 how do we account for the missing people (biella and azeem, who I think would also have voted for mako's talk) 00:09:04 we wish they were here to discuss :/ 00:09:16 could we settle on the agreed items, and put the disputed to a vote on the list? 00:09:25 we dont and we rig the vote! 00:09:32 i propose we urge schdeuling mako and jorge for the large room. 00:09:43 who makes up the talks team has fluctuated very widely between this meeting and the last 00:09:48 fine w/me 00:09:53 it fluctuates every meeting 00:10:06 * Hydroxide is not ok leaving the decision beyond tonight... and yes, who gets to vote is generally determined by who shows up. that's normal. 00:10:25 mako&jorge parallel to whomever dare sounds good 00:10:29 ok, sure 00:10:31 dkg: I agree those should both be scheduled in the large room 00:10:41 OK 00:10:42 dkg: or at least, that we should urge the schedulers to do so :) 00:10:54 (and I'd do so if I were scheduler) 00:11:02 my ok sure was me agreeing 00:11:07 i think we're settling on 4 plenaries total then: open, close, DPL, eben 00:11:23 are we going to prevent anyone from using the smaller rooms parallel to a plenary? would we tell someone that they can't schedule an unoffical event then? 00:11:30 #agreed 4 plenaries total: open, close, DPL, eben 00:11:51 MrBeige: unless we have strict access control in those rooms, prohibiting their use seems unlikely 00:12:01 MrBeige: I doubt it. I think we'd just not include them in the printed schedule 00:12:04 mrebeige: 2nd room is v-t spill over 00:12:17 DrDub_: i think he was asking about Schapiro 00:12:18 it almost seems that this is a irrelevent debate... 00:12:20 not 2nd room 00:12:33 MrBeige: it affects the number we shoot for 00:12:40 in terms of cutting. 00:13:00 MrBeige: my only comment about that now is if you're trying to make us revisit whether a decision we just spent 12-16 minutes on is worth it, we'll spend another 12-16 minutes arguing about that :) 00:13:01 so now, with 4 plenaries, that means (7*2 + 6*4)*2 00:13:28 #info we need to accept 76 talks for scheduling 00:13:42 can we move on to the next topic? 00:13:49 <_hc> :) 00:14:03 * Hydroxide is ok moving on 00:14:03 * micah nods 00:14:12 #topic dealing with the "top" and "bottom" 00:14:24 ok, so we have 106 talks that need to be scheduled? 00:14:27 we have 116 events total that are not rejected 00:14:34 10 of them are unscheduled 00:14:37 4 of them are plenaries 00:14:48 that's 102 talks 00:14:53 102 proposals, rather 00:14:58 and we are shooting for 76 00:15:05 so we have space for all but 26 of them 00:15:11 so 26 will not get scheduled for the main 2 rooms 00:15:32 and then they can choose to be scheduled in schapiro, or if talks get canceled, or evening hours, etc 00:15:32 given the current rankings, we should accept the plenaries + the top 50 00:15:43 and reject the bottom 20 00:15:59 sounds good 00:16:00 and then go through the remainder 00:16:03 dkg: can you explain where the 50/20 numbers come from? 00:16:06 so this is the busy work 00:16:08 Hydroxide: my ass 00:16:23 i'm open to other suggestions 00:16:34