Why not have Remy + Matthew work with the Flock planners and anyOn Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:29:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Matthew Miller
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > selection.
> 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.
> It sounds confusing.
> >> I'm opposed to setting aside space for newcomers. I'm skeptical about
> >> 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.
additional people from Council, FESCo, and Ambassadors/Marketing to
plan a set of specific talk topics needed for Flock? In other words,
start with what we're trying to achieve in the next 18+ months, and
let that drive the agenda for Flock. This seems like a better way to
achieve the following goals:
* Connects Flock content with future development
* Thus increasing the value of the conference, and the justification
for people to attend (no matter whether it's on their dime or an
* Also sets up for useful workshops/hackfests around that future
* Helps establish a set of speakers/attendees needed to fund for
attendance, making budget at least somewhat easier to estimate
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
flock-planning mailing list