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 16:00:59 GMT
On 19 February 2015 at 16:39, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Re pushing out to PMCs. Historically this has not been a good idea. Once
> you have 200+ PMCs and PPMCs fighting over 200+ slots you get a horribly
> disjointed program with no real value.
>

> This is one reason why I want LF to set the theme. We can then create a
> smaller list of PMCs that fit the theme.
>
Which is going to happen for next AC. That is actually part of what I want
by having track-chair very early in the process....and they will then push
the requiered PMCs for talks.

rgds
jan I.

>
> My as yet unspoken hope is that we will then end up with multiple
> ApacheCons each year, something like "ApacheCon: Big Data", "ApacheCon:
> Applications", "ApacheCon: Cloud". However we need to give LF time to walk
> before we ask them to consider running (I believe that time has now passed
> and will make this suggestion in Austin when we debrief.
>
> Rss
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:29 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ApacheCon Schedule
>
> 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