On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Matthew Miller
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 03:39:50PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Similarly, the conference is created around what the attendees find
> interesting. Even if the synopsis is very accurate and detailed, if
I was talking to Dmitri Pal (from FreeIPA) at LISA, and he suggested
that rather than having people vote on individual talks, we could have
people propose _topics_, and then we'd have a community-wide vote on
those - separate from specific speakers or talks. From that, we could
have a "skeletal" schedule of tracks and talks in certain areas. Then,
we could have interested/knowledgeable people in each selected topic
fill that out... maybe provide an ordered list of recommended
talks/sessions, which would go to the Flock committee for final
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
It sounds confusing.
> I'm opposed to setting aside space for newcomers. I'm
> allowing speaker identity in the votes, but not strictly opposed.
> Frankly, I'd like to see a major reduction in _talks_ overall.
> Perhaps one day of them, with the remainder of Flock being focused on
> _doing_ things. If that happens, then competition for talk slots is
> going to be higher.
I'm in support of few talks with higher attendance. The one complaint I
got from a couple of people about the last Flock is that they didn't
get the audience they expected. I also like "more doing things", but I
don't want the proven success of pre-planned sessions from Flock the
last couple of years to fall back into the less-productive chaos we
were seeing at FUDCon.
Right, I don't want barcamp. I want less talks, but still pre-planned
talks and schedule.