On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:42:11AM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
> > If we do all the important talks on the first day we can actually move
> Ouch to people who don't get scheduled on the "important" day.
That's just
> incentive for people to ditch early and not stay for the rest of the
> conference.
Yeah, I don't think "important" is quite the right way to divide it.
More...
more general and higher-level vs. more specific and team-focused. I also
agree with making sure we have "important" and interesting things every day.
If room rental isn't a limiting factor, maybe we could do big-room-only
sesssions in the morning followed by more broken-out tracks in the
afternoons?
I was just talking to someone who noted that Libre Graphics Meeting follows
the single-track/shorter-talk model, and that it worked very well. I think
something like that might work for us too. Take a look at the schedule at
http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2014/program/ -- looks like the middle of
the day is split up but it starts and ends together.
It's plausible that it works well for Libre Graphics Meeting because
the entire conference is limited to a single core topic, namely Libre
Graphics. The individual talks are subsets of that. For Flock, we
have to deal with the entirety of the on-goings in the whole distro.
It's not feasible to have a single or even two-track setup.
> I don't think the budget difference is a big deal. We've
ended up having to
> pay for space the last few years anyway. I agree with fewer tracks at one
> time, but not down to only two, and I definitely don't like having a day
I think three might be nicer than two, but given the room sitution, two
seems natural. There's an "ouch" factor associated with being scheduled in
the other complex running at the same time as a popular talk, too.
That's par for the course at any conference.
josh