On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 08:22:20AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I guess also my corresponding assumption was that it was more
> community vote.
Really? Did you even really think about this before you made such an
assumption? Let's break some stuff down here.
Uh... yes. Yes I did. Where is this hostility coming from? You asked
1) The number of talks submitted, while encouragingly growing year
over year, is not so plentiful as to allow us to pick and choose talks
on a whim.
Who said anything about "on a whim"?
2) If you compare the set schedule with the voting results, you will
find an extremely high correlation of high voted talks on the agenda.
To the point where some of the talks were accepted even with large
reservations from the planning committee. Multiple times.
I haven't gone and compared. I see all of the past voting results are
open now, but last year I rememer them being embargoed and I assumed
that was intentional. If I'm misremembering or misunderstood, I'm
3) Why would we even bother holding a vote if the results were going
to be essentially meaningless? What would be the point of the hassle
and arguing about it?
A lot has been made over how Flock differs from recent FUDCons in that
it has an intentional, pre-planned scedule rather than a bar-camp
schedule -- which is to say, a schedule primarily made based on votes
of the attendees. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to take that
to mean that other factors are considered heavily.
That doesn't mean that it's _meaningless_, though. I would have said
"0%" if I meant meaningless. I said "20%", which, sure, is an
number I made up, but by that I mean: given significant weight, but
only one of a number of important factors considered by the committee.
Fedora Project Leader