21:07:39 #startmeeting - DebConf talks team 21:07:39 Meeting started Fri May 20 21:07:39 2011 UTC. The chair is gwolf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:07:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 21:07:43 but i'm not on the talks team so it doesn't matter ;) 21:08:02 Ok... I don't really have a schedule this time around, and I'm sorry :( 21:08:07 I have been busy with $RL 21:08:18 i think we need: 21:08:18 So, I'm basically referring to http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2011/debconf-team.2011-05-11-22.02.html 21:08:21 how about just going through last times summary? 21:08:23 *nods* 21:08:26 dkg: please go ahead 21:08:35 0) a schedule, and a (rough) list of venues and timeslots 21:08:50 1) (from that) a rough count of total available slots 21:08:59 Right. 21:09:14 2) to do a collective cull based on the ratings into 3 pools: accept, reject, discuss 21:09:21 I was thinking about a potential problem re: the schedules 21:09:22 3) have the "discuss" part 21:09:45 Pentabarf allows the submitter to specify the desired duration for their proposed talks 21:09:46 (i'm not pretending 2 and 3 would happen today) 21:10:02 it does, but we've made it clear in the cfp that talks will be 45 minutes. 21:10:06 didn't we? 21:10:07 Most people chose 1h 21:10:09 yes, we did 21:10:14 that's fine then 21:10:19 penta defaults to 1h 21:10:25 people didn't choose it 21:10:26 so we will take the liberty of cutting them "except when there are strong reasons.."? 21:10:29 oh, perfect 21:10:34 the tyranny of the default 21:11:06 i think for 0) we will have to wait until holger and moray have done the recce mission 21:11:11 (we should have changed the default to 45 min before the cfp went out, though, so we could claim later that they had chosen it) 21:11:14 so that we know what the venue actually offers 21:11:18 #info We announced in the CfP we would have 45 minute slots - We will cut accepted proposals from Penta's default 1hr to 45 minutes except for specific requests 21:11:25 (sorry. just thinking out loud) 21:11:29 nattie: Right, that's a blocker 21:11:33 nattie: that sounds reasonable 21:11:42 they'll be there until wednesday 21:11:57 Proposed hours for activity? 21:12:08 later rather than earlier, from experience 21:12:13 maybe we can propose a schedule to h01ger^Wvideo team 21:12:20 when is travel sponsorship decided? 21:12:36 sorry, don't know offhand 21:12:45 it'd be nice to be able to tell the travel sponsorship team to please strongly consider the folks we're definitely accepting 21:12:46 nattie: I completely agree, I'd rather not schedule anything before 10AM, maybe even 11, but I'd be willing to schedule up to 21:00... 21:12:59 dkg: very true. Who is in that team this year? 21:13:03 * gwolf goes to check... 21:13:04 gwolf: 11, i think. and even then you'll get the odd zombie-geek 21:13:13 mmm, zombies 21:13:18 mmm, magical ponies 21:13:23 over here people are all preparing tfor the rapture tomorrow 21:13:42 #action we should notify as early as possible the travel sponsorship team of the strongly wanted talks, to make it more probable the submitters get sponsored 21:13:43 dkg: the man from mars who eats guitars? 21:14:04 gwolf: can we ask penta for a distribution of aggregate rankings 21:14:11 and just outright accept the top third already? 21:14:23 (that last part is more to the team than just gwolf 21:14:32 i have a feeling that could go a bit wrong, though 21:14:32 the penta part was for gwolf, our pentamaster) 21:14:32 According to http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Teams, the rankers are Ganneff, amaya, luciano, an3as, aroundthfur, h01ger 21:15:22 dkg: If you enter https://penta.debconf.org/penta/report/review and click on the "rating" header, you'll get the sorted list 21:15:31 well that's easy 21:16:04 So we could say that with ≥80 they are in the accepted set? 21:16:48 i was going to say 75 21:16:59 but i'm fine with 80 as the "obviously yes" cutoff 21:17:08 what do other people think? 21:17:33 we just don't want to "obviously yes" so many that the schedule overflows 21:17:34 #action gwolf starts marking talks with ranking ≥ 80 as accepted as soon as the meeting is over 21:17:39 but i don't think that's a real risk. 21:18:00 dkg: precisely, that's the main reason to keep it high (visually /methinks it's about the top ¼) 21:18:11 making it ≥75 will add 8 talks 21:18:15 s/talks/events/ 21:18:24 hmmmmm 21:18:49 of course - And we are not schedule-fighting for the cheese and wine party or for the formal^Wspecial dinner 21:18:52 but we don't want those announcements of acceptance to make people think that if they haven't heard, they were rejected. 21:18:58 right 21:19:01 do we actually have a rough idea of how many schedule slots we have, or have i missed something? 21:19:12 nattie: not yet, but we can make some numbers :-} 21:19:27 say, if we assume 1hr slots (45min + 15min rest) 21:19:42 that would be 7 or 8 slots a day maximum 21:19:45 less with lunch 21:19:50 per room, that is 21:19:57 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19 21:20:15 with an option 19-20/20-21 slot? 21:20:20 *optional 21:20:21 that's seven slots, and we could squeeze two or three more (i.e. just 1hr for lunch, or after dinner, or whatnot) 21:20:30 urgh no, short lunches are awful 21:20:37 * gwolf knows 21:20:51 but after dinner might work - qv *C3 scheduling that has events on quite late 21:21:10 nattie: 6 slots per day probably 21:21:23 i'd be surprised if they give us access to these fancy chambers after-hours 21:21:29 but i could be wrong of course. 21:21:32 oh, yeah, true 21:21:34 depends 21:21:37 But just for getting some numbers going - Lets see what happens with 6 * 2 rooms 21:21:41 it's not like Edinburgh where we had to go away at night 21:21:44 (and having an extra room or two without video) 21:21:56 so, 12 slots per day 21:21:57 dc10 we definitely did not have good after-hours access 21:22:00 6 days? 21:22:03 7? 21:22:08 so 72 or 84 slots total 21:22:12 18 slots per day if we count one room with no video 21:22:25 let's assume 6 days (because debian day doesn't count) 21:22:30 dkg: 5 days 21:22:32 daytrip 21:22:37 right 21:22:41 we're down to 60 slots 21:22:46 90 slots with room 3 21:22:47 or 90 21:22:48 yeah 21:22:53 dkg: my braincell! 21:23:03 (er -- room 2, i'm no pascal programmer) 21:23:14 you made a similar crack last week 21:23:23 and we have 35 talks ≥80 21:23:29 this week was a reference to last week 21:23:48 and ~43 ≥75 21:23:51 that's what they all say 21:24:06 #info Doing out of our head calculatioins, we can have a total of 60 talk slots in the main (with video) rooms, plus whatever the rooms without video provide 21:24:28 priority would go to accepting the top 60? 21:24:36 we can accept events without promising them video 21:24:43 nattie: We don't have to _fill_ the schedule 21:24:47 acceptance just means formally allocating time and space on the schedule 21:24:54 and yes, there's no need to pack it in. 21:24:55 there's only so much of my wife to go around, you know ;) 21:25:08 he's just a skinny boy 21:25:12 leaving some unallocated slots for ad-hoc at-conference planning is good. 21:25:37 dkg: /methinks we should schedule all selected talks in video-enabled rooms 21:25:39 yeah - also, in a too-full schedule people will generally decide they can't be arsed, and go eat some fries instead 21:25:58 nattie: I hope the 15 minute breaks will ease some of that tension 21:26:28 yeah 21:26:39 i meant more the matter of "gah, too many choices, what do i go see?!" 21:26:58 Ok... So, basically, can we say we are tentatively happy with the outcome of how this will be scheduled? :) 21:27:11 gwolf: i disagree -- i think it's perfectly fine to accept some talks for non-video rooms. 21:27:19 there are BoFs that don't want video coverage 21:27:25 dkg: but that's not talks 21:27:35 dkg: right, and we _did_ rate BoFs 21:27:38 BoFs, as you know, are the birth of the feather ;) 21:27:39 unlike some other years 21:27:46 ok, we've been loosely exchanging the term "talk" and "event" 21:27:56 i think that needs to be separated, then 21:27:57 thus far, i've been referring to the generic "event" 21:28:06 BoFs are not for videoing, i think 21:28:11 (*especially* not the dance BoF) 21:28:13 But OTOH some BoFs _arE_ 21:28:14 some definitely are 21:28:25 * gregoa nods to dkg :) 21:28:26 i actually don't think it's terrible to keep talking about generic events. 21:28:26 hmmmmm 21:28:35 as they can be very interesting to follow, even if they put extra tension on the camera operators 21:28:44 * gwolf nods to gregoa 21:28:45 i think allocating video to events is separate from accepting them. 21:28:53 (sshhh) 21:28:58 dkg: fairy nuff. i'm not actually on this team, so a lot of my suggestions probaly should be taken with a grain of salt or tw 21:29:01 *two 21:29:17 and we should concentrate on accepting without making video promises except for events that say that they absolutely must get video. 21:29:22 (after biking uphill, believe me, they are taken with some drops of salt) 21:29:45 dkg: what would you say if we try to schedule all accepted lectures in video-enabled rooms 21:29:56 and try to... use our criteria regarding the BoFs? :) 21:30:09 that sounds like a reasonable heuristic 21:30:12 that sounds sensible 21:30:25 (after all, we will both be on the scheduling team :-} 21:30:30 are these BoFs basically cunningly disguised talks? (panels and the like) 21:30:37 * blarson sorry I'm late, will read scrollback 21:30:53 #agree We will try to schedule all accepted lectures in video-enabled rooms, and try to... use our criteria regarding the BoFs 21:30:55 blarson: no worries, it was basically hashing through the criteria for accepting talks 21:31:02 though i don't think we need to decide viedo allocations now. 21:31:11 nattie: some are, some are genuine BoFs with all of the audience being active 21:31:14 blarson: welcome :) 21:31:49 Ok... Two other topics off the top of my head: Tracks and proceedings 21:31:57 how many video-desirable bofs are there anyway? 21:32:00 And I think the latter is easier to get through :) 21:32:00 roughly, i mean 21:32:11 sorry 21:32:15 * gwolf has no numbers right away... 21:32:23 no rush 21:32:30 #topic Proceedings 21:32:56 So... Well, do you think they will be plausible? 21:33:07 I tend to think we will end up giving up on them 21:33:14 aw :( 21:33:30 i havne't seen any action on the publishing side 21:33:44 nattie: As we'd (wel, whoever coordinates that would) have to hurry re: acceptance and gather the papers 21:34:07 And we got two offers for copy-editors, but none for coordination 21:34:08 people could mail papers to me, i guess 21:34:23 nattie: could you persuade people to do so? 21:34:28 as long as someone were willing to help me put the actual document together 21:35:01 i could put out an announcement in the usual nattie-announcement style 21:35:03 nattie: if you run behind people and check the papers, and somebody else puts it together, is it OK? 21:35:10 sure 21:35:21 great! So lets keep trying to do this :-D 21:35:26 i'm just scared of trying to deal with typesetting and stuffs 21:35:57 #agreed nattie volunteered to run behind people requesting the papers and check the papers — But will not do the document layout/typesetting/stuff. We need another voluntere for that. 21:36:10 Great, so... anything else re: proceedings? 21:36:17 GIVE ME THE RED PEN! 21:36:20 we need that coordinator early, before nattie hounds people 21:36:27 because they'll have some constraints on formatting 21:36:49 and nattie should know about those constraints 21:36:56 #info We need that coordinator early, for the constraints on formatting 21:36:57 right 21:37:18 #topic Tracks 21:37:20 i'm willing to learn layoutish stuff, but would rather not be actually *doing* that this year, IYSWIM 21:37:29 nattie: you'll do it alright ;-) 21:37:42 Ok... So, who has achieved what on this topic? :) 21:37:55 I mailed zobel, but got no reply (and didn't try again) 21:38:20 isn't zobel on #-publicity? 21:38:59 he seems to be unavailable right now - I'll try to get hold of him and see what happens with his proposal... 21:39:30 I know dkg talked with zack, and that blarson mailed Rhonda 21:39:45 but... in both cases, that's basically the extents of what I know :) 21:40:25 dkg, blarson: any replies? 21:40:50 #action gwolf should contact again zobel re: the debian.org webservices track 21:41:09 sorry, putting out fires in another channel :/ 21:41:16 drama? 21:41:24 lack of magical ponies? 21:41:25 (oh, and micah - Anything thought regarding the skills exchange?) 21:41:50 i think zack and i will co-coordinate the debian/society track 21:41:57 we need to put our heads together about it 21:42:02 i owe him an e-mail 21:42:03 very good :-D 21:42:15 #info dkg and zack will co-coordinate the debian/society track 21:42:27 dkg: once you get a proper name thought out, tell me please 21:43:24 Oh - and of course, regarding the scheduling, tracks will have to get contiguous blocks, and coordinators will be free to fill them whatever way they want, even with low-ranked talks, right? 21:43:39 sure 21:43:51 gwolf: will do 21:43:59 gwolf: i haven't had an ounce of time to even consider it :( 21:44:02 which is why it's necessary to leave some space for low-ranked talks 21:44:11 or rather to not fill up the entire schedule 21:44:17 gwolf: i think last year we've said that track coordinators can strongly recommend stuff to the talks team 21:44:20 (sorry, i know i'm reinventing the wheel) 21:44:40 but talks team as a whole gets the final say 21:44:43 micah: Do you think you can get some time in the next few weeks? 21:44:48 dkg: I like it 21:45:05 (in practice, the track coordinators could pretty easily sway the talks team with anything like a reasonable argument) 21:45:15 um 21:45:22 #agreed Track coordinators can strongly recommend stuff to the talks team, but talks team as a whole gets the final say 21:45:33 isn't "track coordinators" at least in part a subset of "talks team"? 21:45:38 gwolf: to consider if I will do it, yes for sure 21:46:07 nattie: not necessarily 21:46:17 well, yes, in part a subset - in part not :) 21:46:46 yeah, i phrased badly, i meant isn't there a fair amount of overlap 21:46:50 but realised there wasn't really 21:46:57 #info micah still has to finish pondering if he will coordinate skills exchange 21:47:02 blarson: any news from you? 21:47:13 hehe 21:47:31 rhonda mentioned receiveing the mail on irc 21:47:41 hasn't replied yet 21:48:09 #info blarson still has only got an ack but no real reply - we'll keep waiting 21:48:20 #topic DebianDay 21:48:32 anything we can say on this regard? (I know it's not precisely for us) 21:48:37 aroundthfur: around here? 21:48:50 i believe aroundthfur spoke briefly to biella 21:50:34 ok... so this basically means we have very little to report on the topic (: 21:50:59 #topic Anything else? 21:52:13 nothing offhand 21:52:39 Ok... I'l declare this meeting closed if there's nothing more to add 21:52:56 #endmeeting