On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Matthew Miller
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:29:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'm not understanding how this works. The community would propose
> things they are interested in hearing about, a vote would be held, and
> the results would show topic areas of interest. But then what happens
> if we don't have any speakers to provide talks for those? Or even if
> we do have speakers, the workload on the staff isn't reduced at all.
> The have to vet the topics and results and then vet the talks and
> speakers anyway.
Yes, I wasn't particularly thinking about workload on staff. I mean, I
do think that's important, it just wasn't part of this suggestion.
But, it _could_ reduce workload by spreading it out, with people
interested in each topic doing the basic vetting of talks and speakers.
And if there _aren't_ speakers on a particular topic, or enough people
interested in that topic to organize around it despite high voting,
then... that's a natural check on the voting process, and insures that
interest is actually real from people who will be hands-on.
This could work for hackfests / workshops / activity sessions, too --
people interested in a workshop would vote on that interest, not on a
specific implementation of it, and then the interested people would
work out the implementation.
But, eh. I think it is an interesting suggestion, but if you all don't
like it, I'll move on.
If we take it with Paul's twist and have the Council/staff set the
broader topics (I keep thinking of these as tracks), then it might
work. A curated set of CFP topics/tracks might indeed be worthwhile.
But just having the community propose topics is really no different
than having them submit talks on whatever they want.