lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: PMC Generated Content, Training and the current CFPs
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:16 GMT
OK, I re-asked on Concom and the gist of it is (copied below):

They are going to send us a PDF of the CFP related to our area.  I  
think we should wait until we get that list before deciding anything  
is "for sure".  Thus, I have moved the items under "for sure", back  
into the other section of undecided.  Although, I still think it is  
safe to assume we have one Intro talk for each project that wants  
one.  However, for now, I will even leave those off the "for sure" list.

Pre-conference Training is not part of our obligations.  They (the  
planners) will be taking training from the CFP system as they always  
have.

It sounds like for now, we just need to pin down how many days we need  
(I'm going to throw out: 2 conf. days, plus 0.5 for a meetup, which is  
usually at night) and a description of our target audience.

I think we also need to come up with some criteria for selecting  
speakers/content.
<completely_my_opinion_and_not_the_criteria>
To me, we need a mix of intro, medium and advanced talks.  We need  
some original content (i.e. this isn't the same talk rehashed for the  
5th time)  We need a mix of speakers (committers/contributors, users,  
etc.)  We also need technical and some non-technical.  Most of all, we  
need compelling content that is going to get the community interested  
in actually paying to attend.
</completely_my_opinion_and_not_the_criteria>


<concom response>
The PMC will get a file (pdf or whatnot) of all CFP's that were accepted
through the first round of cuts.

The PMC will do what the planners would have to do no matter what, cut
that further; then go back to the proposers with suggestions that would
make that content more current/interesting/useful, and accept some CFPs
outright.  And fill in the missing content, large information holes with
some new ideas spun up from the PMC.

Does that make sense?  It honors the contribution of all who submitted
through the CFP process, while allowing the PMC to decide what is on  
topic
and attractive, rather than leaving the entire process to 9 or 10 people
who aren't nearly as familiar with your PMC's project as you are :)
</concom response>


On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> Under this new model of selecting content, is the PMC responsible  
> for pre-conference training as well as the "conference" content?
>
> Also, how do we get access to the CFP system?  I've already heard  
> from several people who put into the CFP system expecting to hear  
> results back by now.  What do we tell them?  Seems a bit weird to  
> have solicited CFPs and then basically leave those people up in the  
> air.
>
> -Grant


Mime
View raw message