sessions, voting, and the next flock

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 01:00:20PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 06/03/2013 12:40 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > * I really want to know the speaker names. - There's a few talks
> > that are very similar.  Judging which one I want to go to largely
> > depends on who was giving it.
> 
> I think it makes sense to combine any similar talks into one talk for
> the final schedule. We would of course reach out to both submitters in
> this case and ensure they are okay with a joint presentation.
> 
> If you see talks that you feel are similar enough for this, please
> call them out explicitly. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to
> the scheduling committee. :)
> 
<nod>  Cool.  I'll get you a list in the next couple days when I have
a chance to read through it again.

> 
> > * Many of the similar sessions are talks about how we might want to
> > change Fedora.  I don't think the talk format is going to serve us
> > well here as we're going to have different people giving competing
> > proposals in different time slots throughout the conference with
> > potentially disjoint attendees.  It seems like it would be better
> > to merge these types of future-planning into a one-day "hackfest"
> > session.  People could each be given 15-30 minutes to present a
> > proposal for the future of Fedora (hopefully with the proposal
> > online in advance so that people could consolidate if their
> > proposal had significant overlap with someone else's).  At the end
> > of the presentations, the attendees could try and come to consensus
> > on some of the changes to make a single proposal or at least,
> > narrow the field a bit.  This could then be presented to the 
> > conference as a whole (and mailing lists after the conference) as a
> > proposal or starting point for discussion about the future.
> 
> Hmm. I was more thinking about having a specific track for these
> items. Perhaps I am pessimistic in thinking that consensus across all
> of these "change" ideas is likely to occur over the course of a single
> day. I almost want FESCo/Board to listen to these ideas and try to
> turn them into a plan for the future.
> 
<nod>

I like the idea of Fedora decision makers listening to these ideas and then
working through them with the people who are proposing them to come up with
a proposal or two that try to encompass as many of the good ideas as they
can.

A track followed by a FESCo/Board hackfest might be the best way to put this
into the current format for flock.

In the future, instead of a track it might be nice to have a day devoted to
making and explaining proposals; discussion and hashing out of controversial
areas to still happen later in the conference.  The difference from a track
would be that a track is parallel to the rest of the conference.  Since so
many of us wear several hats, that makes it difficult to participate in the
whole discussion.  (Or alternately, to participate in the rest of the
conference).

Maybethis could be done FAD style:  who has proposals that need to be run by
a larger amount of the community?  What large portions of the community need
to be there to here those and work on them in the rest of the conference?
Can we get all of those people to the first day/one day before (depending
on how you think of it ;-) to work on these things together?

I had written up some thoughts on a purely-developer focused event and that
sort of Day 1 was one of the things I thought would be useful:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/I_dream_of_conference#Purely_developer_focused_event

Just a warning that a lot of the ideas there shouldn't be taken as things to
do for this flock -- more ideas for things we could think about doing for
the next flock.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/flock-planning/attachments/20130603/df3c36c0/attachment.sig>