community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ApacheCon Schedule
Date Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:01:51 GMT
On 19 February 2015 at 17:05, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> 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.
>
Thanks. If you have the time, and joe wants the talk (I assume you
coordinate directly), then please send me a mail with information as per
columns in the spreadsheet, then I will get it added to CFP.

rgds
jan i.


> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: jan i<mailto:jani@apache.org>
> Sent: ‎2/‎19/‎2015 7:59 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: ApacheCon Schedule
>
> On 19 February 2015 at 16:49, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> 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 <rbowen@rcbowen.com> 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@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message