community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: ApacheCon Schedule
Date Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:55:02 GMT

I reviewed all 239 proposals and selected the following (most 
interesting first):

#237 - speaker has another accepted talk

Interesting, but:
#39 - bordering the big-data side
#64 - sounds more suitable for a business track
#13 - already a few other kafka presentations
#202 - less focused than #201
#106 - #155 is more interesting
#138 - #155 is more interesting
#236 - less interesting than #237 (and #238 accepted)

* I would have put #237 higher up, but speaker already has #238 accepted.
* I selected 7 in the first section; (at least) one will end up on the 
waiting list
* there are a few kafka presentations I ignored, already a few accepted ones
* #35 sounds very interesting, but doesn't belong to this track

Please review and decide. Feel free to change or reshuffle as necessary.


On 02/19/2015 11:05 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> I just added 4 sessions. There is one more for the community track if Joe wants it (not
in CFP). So there is space for a 6 session track from Hadrian.
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: jan i<>
> Sent: ‎2/‎19/‎2015 7:59 AM
> To:<>
> Subject: Re: ApacheCon Schedule
> On 19 February 2015 at 16:49, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>> Traditionally we had an integration track at ApacheCon. I volunteered to
>> run it this year, but there was virtually no answer from the PMCs.
> I see however that there are more than enough proposals to put together a 6
>> talks integration track for Wed. If I could get a second, I'll get on it
>> and have it done probably before the end of the day.
> Rich is boarding his plane now, but I am fine with such a track...but
> please coordinate the number of free spaces with Ross, so we avoid double
> bookings.
> rgds
> jan i
>> Cheers
>> Hadrian
>> On 02/19/2015 10:29 AM, jan i wrote:
>>> On 19 February 2015 at 15:05, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
>>>   For those not involved in the process so far, I appreciate your patience,
>>>> and your suffering in the dark. Making the schedule public too early
>>>> caused
>>>> significant logistical problems last two times (people thinking they knew
>>>> things that they didn't know, and making travel plans accordingly), and
>>>> we
>>>> want to avoid that nightmare this time around.
>>>> For those involved in the process so far:
>>>> It looks like we're done with the ApacheCon schedule. Sort of. We've got
>>>> 7
>>>> tracks, three days, which I think is probably just the right volume.
>>>> Please look at the DRAFT schedule, and comment in this thread. I, for
>>>> one,
>>>> think we have a kickin' schedule.
>>>> Problems that I think still need solving:
>>>> * We have an empty spot in the community track. Given that community is
>>>> what we *do*, it seems that we could come up with 6 community talks to
>>>> schedule, and have a few fallbacks. If folks could look through the
>>>> not-yet-accepted list with me and see what you can find, that would be
>>>> awesome.
>>>>   I did not find what I thought was a really strong community talk.
>>>   * We have 16 open slots. We don't need to fill all of them - we need to
>>>> leave 6 or 7 slots open for vendor-sponsored talks (Don't worry, these
>>>> will
>>>> NOT be product pitches) which will show up over the coming weeks. (LF's
>>>> problem, not ours.) But I think we can probably put together a few
>>>> half-day
>>>> tracks if we put our minds to it. We have an entire day/track on
>>>> Wednesday,
>>>> if someone still thinks that they can put together a complete track (6
>>>> talks).
>>>> * We need more wait-listed talks. We currently have 6 waitlisted talks,
>>>> and I'm probably going to take several of those right now to fill in some
>>>> empties.
>>>>   I am now on my second iteration, to mark talks as wait-listed. The
>>> definition is pretty simple, it need to be an unscheduled talk (of course)
>>> and the speaker must have an accepted talk.
>>>   * We have the problem that's not a problem, which is that we had 239
>>>> submissions, and have only accepted 115 talks - less than half. So we'll
>>>> get a LOT of "why wasn't my talk accepted" emails, and I never have very
>>>> good answers to that, because the answer really is, this time, too much
>>>> content, too little space. But the questions will come, and that's a very
>>>> unsatisfying answer to people that have put time and effort into crafting
>>>> talk abstracts.
>>>>   This is really a good argument for pushing more out to the PMCs and have
>>> track chairs, who start before CFP officially opens, so they can help
>>> create the right talks.
>>> I take this as a lesson learned. To be fair the track-chair idea worked
>>> better than I thought, and next time we know to push harder for that.
>>>> If you would like to help with any of these things, please get in touch
>>>> with me. Or, just step up and claim it and do it.
>>>> Note that I will be flying for much of today, and at a conference
>>>> Friday-Sunday, so if I'm not responsive, please ping Jan Iversen, who can
>>>> also help you out with this - although apparently I can't make him Owner
>>>> of
>>>> the Google Doc, so actually sharing the doc with you will be delayed,
>>>> unless you respond in the next 3 hours.
>>>>   thats me :-)
>>> I will be available the next couple of days, and try also to be on IRC as
>>> much as possible....sadly enough sharing is left to Rich.
>>> rgds
>>> jan i
>>>   --
>>>> Rich Bowen - - @rbowen
>>>> - @apachecon

View raw message