On Mon, Jun 19, 2017, at 11:49 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:16:04PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 11:15:49AM -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> >> >==========
> >> >> Registration remains open.
> >> >> Registrations: 96
> >> >>
> >> >Ordinarily this close we'd be closer to 200. Is it possible many
of
> >> >your speakers haven't registered, not know if their talks were
> >> >accepted?
> >>
> >> I'd say very possible given there's a reg fee now, but you
can't add
> >> a copresenter unless they are reg so at least all of the
> >> copresenters are registered!
> >
> > This is a good thing to note for either planning or the app
> > design... ensuring we figure out who's accepted and not yet completed
> > registration so we can nagmail as needed. Should be quite simple to
> > accomplish but maybe having a button option is worthwhile. When
> > should folks receive acceptance notifications?
> >
> >> >> Session Proposals
> >> >> ===============
> >> >> Session proposals: 117 (119 with 2 duplicates)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That seems like a usable number. I'd consider not extending given
> >> >how close the event is. You may have already discovered this, but
> >> >you'll find a chunk of them are duplicates. In the past, we've
> >> >suggested to people who submitted similar suggestions that they
> >> >combine efforts in whatever way works for them. Sometimes this goes
> >> >over better than others.
> >
> > FWIW, I agree with this. Gratitude to Mo for the initial analysis of
> > numbers. 7 tracks seems like an awful lot at one time, but I
> > understand talk acceptance often motivates attendance or funding. I
> > put in a few notes with my votes (har!) where I saw an opportunity to
> > combine talks.
>
> We've been yelled at before to keep it under 5 tracks because people
> find more than that way too many. Something about impossible to
> attend everything they want to see while simultaneously not having any
> time for hallway track.
I'm probably among that crowd although I try not to yell. ;-)
> I'd also note that your submissions still heavily favor talks vs.
"do"
> things. Maybe the attendees prefer the talks?
Or folks find it difficult to translate "thing I'm interested in
talking about" into "action we can take to make Fedora better." As a
voter, I based votes on whether I thought a session was going to
result in a positive change. My votes, IIRC, tended to favor the
workshops with more plusses than talks. My assumption is that not
every session will end up in the program, and we should take guidance
from the FPL & Council's goal of a more practically oriented event.
I truly believe it is this. I don't think that we have ever really
asked people to translate their ideas into actions as strongly before on
such a large level. I have voted in favor of things that result in
positive forward movement and in person participation. This meant that
I had to vote less for things that I were talks I just thought were cool
because I could easily read or watch the same thing. In several cases
they were talks that I would LOVE to see submitted to other conferences
as part of our marketing/mindshare/outreach efforts.
regards,
bex