From apachecon-discuss-return-156-apmail-apachecon-discuss-archive=apache.org@apache.org Wed Jun 13 14:14:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-apachecon-discuss-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-apachecon-discuss-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEF1CC532 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:14:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 68017 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2012 14:14:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apachecon-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 67965 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2012 14:14:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apachecon-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list apachecon-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 67957 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2012 14:14:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:14:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jfclere@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.48] (HELO mail-wg0-f48.google.com) (74.125.82.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:13:51 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id dq11so412466wgb.5 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FkpmBWjhCJgfb4vPBkXYYjYRECsNccTfpNLXhuPSanQ=; b=sEcUfUSKitbFhWPss2VsgvBU/bptyOe4WoZNBvwv44BjVtdpvvFg5XRcGu38t0ECoH KJc5KG4qMzgYHgJKaZntAjlnU4p8zBxJUl5aVZaUkN1KMNo0DPQcxybcpKz5KI28D7zR 6WluyVVBTQwObnVAU4z3Ueu8Lx5Kb5M6PfBQPmGL7IN3gYoFqLc8dmNaK6FwzyeA8fbA dV5H1HnEIKstLCRo4Pf+wF2CGATIn9uDTaXjqwiWvUJIpoE76crkUtTVXA66zjT/1vHM DW2UofrR59ce+BC2NIdkxjEuWlj3YpT3mN3DBmdl9lKhnCF6LSXvjyPbpuVLALFC+jul e5nw== Received: by 10.216.193.162 with SMTP id k34mr10795243wen.54.1339596811180; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.34] (40.Red-88-13-34.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [88.13.34.40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d10sm9578722wiy.3.2012.06.13.07.13.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD8A005.7020203@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:13:25 +0200 From: jean-frederic clere User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: CFP pre-req - tracks References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/13/2012 02:35 AM, Nick Burch wrote: > Hi All > > It looks like we've had some great proposals for tracks over the last > couple of weeks! I'm keen on most of them already :) > > I think before we can launch the CFP, it makes sense to try to identify > the other tracks that the communities want to put on. In the past, we > have tried holding ApacheCon CFPs without dedicated tracks up front, and > then trying to put the best talks together into tracks. This didn't work > out so well, as some of the tracks ended up not very focused, which made > explaining them to attendees hard, and the sense of community around the > track was often lacking. With all that in mind, I think trying to > identify the proposed tracks in advance of the CFP is worth doing. > > We do already have quite a few proposals on this list, but it's probably > only fair to reach out to the rest of the PMCs to solicit their > proposals too... I was planning to send an email to pmcs@ asking for > ideas soon, then we'll put those proposals into a CFP system, and > hopefully open the CFP in a few weeks. > > I was thinking of suggesting we use a google docs form to capture > proposals for tracks, what do people think? That would have the benefit > of being very simple, and will allow us to populate it with all the > existing proposals easily too. (We don't want to loose the proposals we > already have in on this list!). My hunch is that the data we want would > look something like: > * Track title > * Projects covered > * 2 volunteers to help with the track (aid with selection, liase with > speakers, help with publicity, work with the community at the event etc) > * Ideal size (eg 1x100, 2x100, 1x200 person room) > * Day(s) (eg 1x200 intro day one day, 1x100 detailed sessions another) > > Anything else people think we'll want to capture about proposed tracks? > Do people think 1.5-2 weeks is enough time for clusters of projects to > put a proposal in? Is everyone keen to get the CFP open? :) I think we need to the tracks to open the CFP, no? Cheers Jean-Frederic