On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:29:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I'm not understanding how this works. The community would
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
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.
Fedora Project Leader