Flock CFP deadline today (Apr 3)

[Paul W. Frields]

Hi folks,

Debarshi Ray (cc'd) asked me whether he could still submit a talk for
Flock.  The web app has closed submissions already, but I think the
announcement may lead people to believe they still have today to
submit talks ("through April 3"):

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-March/003202.html

Can we adjust the closing time to 2359 UTC today?

-- 
Paul Frields

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  Hi folks,
>  
>  Debarshi Ray (cc'd) asked me whether he could still submit a talk for
>  Flock.  The web app has closed submissions already, but I think the
>  announcement may lead people to believe they still have today to
>  submit talks ("through April 3"):
>  
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-March/003202.html
>  
>  Can we adjust the closing time to 2359 UTC today? 
+1, I already heard this complain today.

Jaroslav

>  --
>  Paul Frields
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>

[Marina Zhurakhinskaya]

----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Jaroslav Reznik" <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  To: "Planning discussion for Flock (Fedora Contributor Conference)"
> <flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Cc: spot(a)fedoraproject.org, lmacken(a)fedoraproject.org, "Debarshi Ray"
> <dray(a)redhat.com&gt;, rsuehle(a)fedoraproject.org
>  Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:10:28 AM
>  Subject: Re: Flock CFP deadline today (Apr 3)
>  
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  > Hi folks,
>  > 
>  > Debarshi Ray (cc'd) asked me whether he could still submit a talk for
>  > Flock.  The web app has closed submissions already, but I think the
>  > announcement may lead people to believe they still have today to
>  > submit talks ("through April 3"):
>  > 
>  > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-March/003202.html
>  > 
>  > Can we adjust the closing time to 2359 UTC today?
>  
>  +1, I already heard this complain today. 
I would suggest 23:59 UTC tomorrow because re-opening it later today, when it is already
5:30pm in Brno, and closing it the same evening will not work well for people in Europe.

Thanks,
Marina

>  
>  Jaroslav
>  
>  > --
>  > Paul Frields
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > flock-planning mailing list
>  > flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>  > 
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>

[Ruth Suehle]

It's Thursday anyway... Luke, can you open it through tomorrow and give
everybody a bonus day?


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Hi folks,
>
>  Debarshi Ray (cc'd) asked me whether he could still submit a talk for
>  Flock.  The web app has closed submissions already, but I think the
>  announcement may lead people to believe they still have today to
>  submit talks ("through April 3"):
>
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-March/003202.html
>
>  Can we adjust the closing time to 2359 UTC today?
>
>  --
>  Paul Frields
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>  


-- 

GPG-Key-ID:      104ADD81
GPG-Fingerprint: E564 9CDA 5577 4EAC AD8F  874F 24E8 55B0 104A DD81

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  It's Thursday anyway... Luke, can you open it through tomorrow
> and give
>  everybody a bonus day? 
Yeah, it's Thurdsay but I'd say one bonus day with announcement is a very
nice solution.

Btw. how many talks will be accepted, how many days and tracks do we expect?
Based on the first Flock, I'd prefer limiting it a bit, it was just too
much happening in the very short time...

Jaroslav

>  
>  On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Paul W. Frields < stickster(a)gmail.com >
>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  Hi folks,
>  
>  Debarshi Ray (cc'd) asked me whether he could still submit a talk for
>  Flock. The web app has closed submissions already, but I think the
>  announcement may lead people to believe they still have today to
>  submit talks ("through April 3"):
>  
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-March/003202.html
>  
>  Can we adjust the closing time to 2359 UTC today?
>  
>  --
>  Paul Frields
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>  
>  
>  
>  --
>  GPG-Key-ID:      104ADD81
>  GPG-Fingerprint: E564 9CDA 5577 4EAC AD8F  874F 24E8 55B0 104A DD81
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>

[Ruth Suehle]

>  Btw. how many talks will be accepted, how many days and tracks do we
> expect?
>  Based on the first Flock, I'd prefer limiting it a bit, it was just too
>  much happening in the very short time... 
While my opinion is that I'd rather have too many talks I'd like to see than not
enough, we heard that a lot, so there will probably be fewer. I don't know exactly how
many.

[Haïkel]

Hi,

we could reduce (slightly) the number of talks quite simply:
* request confirmation from speakers: last year, people submit many
talks thinking there would be some selection. Some may regret having
more than 2 proposals accepted.
* encouraging co-hosting (ie: we have two talks on Docker), that's
what we did with Toshio when we found out that we both wanted to hold
a reflexion about Fedora governance.

best regards,
H.

[Ruth Suehle]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, H. Guémar <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  we could reduce (slightly) the number of talks quite simply:
>  * request confirmation from speakers: last year, people submit many
>  talks thinking there would be some selection. Some may regret having
>  more than 2 proposals accepted.
>  
I don't recall there being much of this. And if you don't feel qualified to
give two talks, you probably shouldn't submit them both.


>  * encouraging co-hosting (ie: we have two talks on Docker),
> that's
>  what we did with Toshio when we found out that we both wanted to hold
>  a reflexion about Fedora governance.
>  
This we did do on several.

[Haïkel]

That's just what some people told me in the lobby track :)

H.

[Ruth Suehle]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:07 AM, H. Guémar <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  That's just what some people told me in the lobby track :)
>  
If you were sitting around in the lobby, that sounds more like you didn't
have enough talks to go to! :-)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:06:11AM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, H. Gu mar
> <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  
>  
>      we could reduce (slightly) the number of talks quite simply:
>      * request confirmation from speakers: last year, people submit many
>      talks thinking there would be some selection. Some may regret having
>      more than 2 proposals accepted.
>  
>  
>  I don't recall there being much of this. And if you don't feel qualified to
>  give two talks, you probably shouldn't submit them both.
>    
I think I ended up being primary on two talks and needed participant on at
least two more.  I would have loved to give up a talk or two after
finding out that all of them had been accepted.

-Toshio

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  Hi,
>  
>  we could reduce (slightly) the number of talks quite simply:
>  * request confirmation from speakers: last year, people submit many
>  talks thinking there would be some selection. Some may regret having
>  more than 2 proposals accepted.
>  * encouraging co-hosting (ie: we have two talks on Docker), that's
>  what we did with Toshio when we found out that we both wanted to hold
>  a reflexion about Fedora governance. 
It's harder when you see anonymous proposal to talk to other people
to co-host it. Unless you bet who it is and tries to contact the other
person.

Maybe one button "send a message to proposal owner" would work with
anonymous submissions. 

Jaroslav

>  best regards,
>  H.
>  _______________________________________________
>  flock-planning mailing list
>  flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
>

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/03/2014 09:13 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>  ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi,
> > 
> > we could reduce (slightly) the number of talks quite simply: *
> > request confirmation from speakers: last year, people submit
> > many talks thinking there would be some selection. Some may
> > regret having more than 2 proposals accepted. * encouraging
> > co-hosting (ie: we have two talks on Docker), that's what we did
> > with Toshio when we found out that we both wanted to hold a
> > reflexion about Fedora governance.
>  
>  It's harder when you see anonymous proposal to talk to other
>  people to co-host it. Unless you bet who it is and tries to contact
>  the other person.
>  
>  Maybe one button "send a message to proposal owner" would work
>  with anonymous submissions.
>   

I thought we figured out last year that anonymous submissions were a
bad idea. It makes it difficult to vote on whether a talk should be
included if you don't know who is giving it.

For example, I'd vote on a kernel talk from Josh Boyer, but I
*probably* wouldn't vote on one given by me :)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlM9X5QACgkQeiVVYja6o6N/ZwCeJ2HcDDlimw6fRJAvIok0G2n3
> XtsAoJdC4aN57DX0oMrAC5sj/CKeV/Ds
> =MDm2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ruth Suehle]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote:

>  I thought we figured out last year that anonymous submissions were a
>  bad idea. It makes it difficult to vote on whether a talk should be
>  included if you don't know who is giving it.
>  
I don't think there was ever a lot of consensus on it, given both sides.
But I think this time you were required to register in order to submit, not
because of that, but because last year I had speakers wh onever registered.

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  For example, I'd vote on a kernel talk from Josh Boyer, but I
>  *probably* wouldn't vote on one given by me :) 
If I ever find out who started the vicious rumor that I know what I'm
talking about, I'll have to have some sharp words with them.  Now I
have people bugging me in bugzilla constantly!

josh

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:54:42AM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
>  While my opinion is that I'd rather have too many talks I'd
> like to see
>  than not enough, we heard that a lot, so there will probably be fewer. I
>  don't know exactly how many. 
"Too much awesome stuff happening at once!" *is* a nice problem to have.

Maybe it is just my attention span, but personally, I'd prefer shortening
talks over adding more tracks as a way of getting more content into the same
overall timespan. Maybe not all of the talks could work this way, but I bet
many can. Not necessarily like lightning talks with über-compression, but,
say, 30 minutes instead of 45. 50% more talks not just at the conference,
but that people can actually go to because they don't need to be somewhere
else.

-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
                                  "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:54:42AM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
>  > While my opinion is that I'd rather have too many talks I'd like to see
>  > than not enough, we heard that a lot, so there will probably be fewer. I
>  > don't know exactly how many.
>  
>  "Too much awesome stuff happening at once!" *is* a nice problem to have.
>  
>  Maybe it is just my attention span, but personally, I'd prefer shortening
>  talks over adding more tracks as a way of getting more content into the same
>  overall timespan. Maybe not all of the talks could work this way, but I bet
>  many can. Not necessarily like lightning talks with über-compression, but,
>  say, 30 minutes instead of 45. 50% more talks not just at the conference,
>  but that people can actually go to because they don't need to be somewhere
>  else. 
+1, personally I like shorter 30 minutes long talks with possibility of having 
one big split into two - introduction and detailed one for people who really
wants more details (when it's possible). As many times I'm interested in the
topic, especially if it's new thing to me but also I don't want to dig into
detail or vice versa - you skip directly to advanced topic.

But in the end, I don't think for most talks, 30 minutes is usually enough.

R. 

>  --
>  Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>                                    "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"
>

[Jiri Eischmann]

Matthew Miller píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 09:29 -0400:
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:54:42AM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
>  > While my opinion is that I'd rather have too many talks I'd like to see
>  > than not enough, we heard that a lot, so there will probably be fewer. I
>  > don't know exactly how many.
>  
>  "Too much awesome stuff happening at once!" *is* a nice problem to have.
>  
>  Maybe it is just my attention span, but personally, I'd prefer shortening
>  talks over adding more tracks as a way of getting more content into the same
>  overall timespan. Maybe not all of the talks could work this way, but I bet
>  many can. Not necessarily like lightning talks with über-compression, but,
>  say, 30 minutes instead of 45. 50% more talks not just at the conference,
>  but that people can actually go to because they don't need to be somewhere
>  else. 
Hi,
I personally prefer fewer talks in a neatly selected schedule than a
conference with too many talks and tracks. IMHO there were too many
talks to the number of attendees at the last Flock. You spend a lot of
time preparing a talk and then it's attended by 5 people, because there
are 7 other talks running, and the reach is minimal.

At DevConf.cz, we also have 6 parallel tracks, but the conference covers
much more than just Fedora and it's attended by 1,000 people, so each
talk/workshop got at least 20 attendees. 

I really liked the last GUADEC which is about the same size as Flock.
They only had two tracks (which is probably too few for Flock, I admit),
all the talks were picked because they represented important project and
issues and they made nice blocks by topics. The whole conference was
very relaxed and I really enjoyed it. Moreover they also devoted equal
time to the schedule of BoFs and I still think that Flock should be more
about getting together, discussing, and maybe even getting stuff done
than about presenting your stuff to others. It's a contributor
conference after all.

Jiri

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

>  Matthew Miller píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 09:29 -0400:
>  > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:54:42AM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
>  > > While my opinion is that I'd rather have too many talks I'd like to
> see
>  > > than not enough, we heard that a lot, so there will probably be fewer. I
>  > > don't know exactly how many.
>  > 
>  > "Too much awesome stuff happening at once!" *is* a nice problem to have.
>  > 
>  > Maybe it is just my attention span, but personally, I'd prefer shortening
>  > talks over adding more tracks as a way of getting more content into the
>  > same
>  > overall timespan. Maybe not all of the talks could work this way, but I bet
>  > many can. Not necessarily like lightning talks with über-compression, but,
>  > say, 30 minutes instead of 45. 50% more talks not just at the conference,
>  > but that people can actually go to because they don't need to be somewhere
>  > else.
>  
>  Hi,
>  I personally prefer fewer talks in a neatly selected schedule than a
>  conference with too many talks and tracks. 
FWIW, that's my preference too after participating in Linux Foundation's 
conferences (LinuxCon/CloudOpen, KVMForum) for the last couple of years.

But the fewer talks aspect may give a tough time (good -- improves talk 
quality?) for the Flock program committee while selecting submissions.

I wonder for future Flocks, if we could experiment to run 10-15
minute FOSDEM-style ( wildly successful) lightening talks.

>  IMHO there were too many
>  talks to the number of attendees at the last Flock. You spend a lot of
>  time preparing a talk and then it's attended by 5 people, because there
>  are 7 other talks running, and the reach is minimal. 
Hmm, this was certainly true for at-least a session or two -- I recall 
someone at last Flock had to cancel their talk as there was no show up.

[. . .]
>  issues and they made nice blocks by topics. The whole conference was
>  very relaxed and I really enjoyed it. Moreover they also devoted equal
>  time to the schedule of BoFs and I still think that Flock should be more
>  about getting together, discussing, and maybe even getting stuff done 
Yep, especially un-sexy stuff like bug-triaging/reproducing, etc.

/kashyap

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>  I wonder for future Flocks, if we could experiment to run 10-15
>  minute FOSDEM-style ( wildly successful) lightening talks. 
The lightning talks didn't do well at all last year. I think there were a
number of contributing factors, but I think the biggest was that there was
no indication of what they might be, and so when you're looking at the
schedule and there's 6 other things which _do_ have descriptions, it
automatically hits the bottom of the priority list.

I think it could work better if we have at least _some_ planned and
announced in advance. (And also if there aren't so many other things running
against it).


-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
                                  "Tepid change for the somewhat better!"

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/03/2014 11:33 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > I wonder for future Flocks, if we could experiment to run 10-15 
> > minute FOSDEM-style ( wildly successful) lightening talks.
>  
>  The lightning talks didn't do well at all last year. I think there
>  were a number of contributing factors, but I think the biggest was
>  that there was no indication of what they might be, and so when
>  you're looking at the schedule and there's 6 other things which
>  _do_ have descriptions, it automatically hits the bottom of the
>  priority list.
>  
>  I think it could work better if we have at least _some_ planned
>  and announced in advance. (And also if there aren't so many other
>  things running against it).
>  
>   
Also, IIRC the Lightning Talks were scheduled directly opposite the
Fedora Crystal Ball talk, which was standing room only.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlM9gxcACgkQeiVVYja6o6OEbgCeLU4qTDACD3/UYwNahEEeHlyk
> fS8AnRT/0wQ/Ed9uA6lBtVFp1Lo/qlqO
> =7Blf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----