23:07:15 <dkg> #startmeeting
23:07:15 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed May 26 23:07:15 2010 UTC.  The chair is dkg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:07:15 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
23:07:16 <gwolf> MeetBot: don't worry
23:07:16 <MeetBot> gwolf: Error: "don't" is not a valid command.
23:07:33 <sapphire> lol
23:07:42 <dkg> h01ger: thanks
23:08:37 <dkg> gwolf: that's a good point.
23:08:56 <dkg> i wonder if we should address the terminology issue too
23:09:02 <dkg> is it too late to add that to the agenda?
23:09:04 <dkg> :/
23:10:17 <azeem_> .
23:10:22 <micah> hey azeem
23:10:27 <dkg> hi azeem
23:10:57 <micah> we are waiting on DrDub and kris here locally
23:11:10 <azeem> I'll continue rating talks then
23:11:11 <dkg> but gwolf has to leave shortly
23:11:22 <dkg> so it would be nice to make sure we get his feedback
23:11:38 <gwolf> dkg: Don't worry, act as if I were not present
23:11:39 <gwolf> really
23:11:42 <gwolf> I did my rating
23:11:45 <azeem> maybe we could talk about terminology then
23:11:52 <gwolf> and will comment as long as I'm here
23:12:39 <azeem> "What are the options for being less offical short of a BoF?"
23:12:55 <dkg> #topic What are the options for being less offical short of a BoF
23:12:57 <dkg> #topic What are the options for being less offical short of a BoF?
23:13:07 <dkg> sounds good to me.
23:13:12 <gwolf> I would not say the differnce with a BoF is officialdom
23:13:25 <gwolf> I mean... BoFs can be top-rated and ├╝ber-accepted
23:13:32 <azeem> right
23:13:34 <gwolf> and lectures/talks can be rejected/unofficial
23:13:45 <azeem> that was a question in answer to Hydroxide on talks@
23:13:46 <gwolf> they are just a different work modality
23:13:57 <azeem> where he said rejected talks could still be held "less officially"
23:14:12 <azeem> I just wondered how that would work, do we have facilities for that?
23:14:59 <edrz> in the past, the distintion arose roughly as "stuff scheduled before the conference started vs stuff scheduled during the conference"
23:14:59 <azeem> or do we allow any (unofficial) talks to be scheduled in the BoF room(s) if they are vacant
23:15:02 <edrz> or something like that
23:15:37 <edrz> generally, i think so, yes.
23:15:55 <dkg> #topic terminology: what do we call talks or BoFs that are not "accepted"?
23:16:03 <gwolf> Usually we allowed people to "claim" any empty talk slot
23:16:04 <dkg> i think that's the main question.
23:16:15 <gwolf> so they can properly schedule not-accepted talks
23:16:20 <azeem> if we have just one BoF room, this might be difficult
23:16:23 <gwolf> (simplification)
23:16:53 <edrz> from a video-team perspective, we don't promise to cover talks not on the "official" schedule
23:17:06 <azeem> edrz: so what about "official" BoFs?
23:17:13 <edrz> though many un-official talks do end up getting recorded.
23:17:22 <edrz> azeem: it basically depends on person-power
23:17:28 <edrz> i.e. enough volunteers.
23:17:35 <azeem> well, ok
23:17:40 <edrz> + we only plan to cover the 2 main rooms.
23:17:47 <gwolf> and enough time for videoteam (and whoever needs to) to maintain the rooms
23:17:51 <azeem> ok
23:17:58 <gwolf> i.e. we cannot schedule things at lunchtime if there are cleaners at lunchtime
23:18:16 <azeem> so let's say "official" means "accepted by debconf organzizers, in the main rooms, plus will be taped"
23:18:27 <gwolf> yup
23:18:29 <azeem> unofficial are BoFs and other events in the BoF rooms
23:19:24 <gwolf> azeem: There can be official BoFs
23:19:31 <azeem> in the main rooms?
23:19:36 <azeem> this is getting confusing
23:19:49 <azeem> 01:16 < azeem> edrz: so what about "official" BoFs?
23:19:54 <gwolf> And (i.e. recalling Edinburgh) if there are official BoFs which are to be recorded, they should be scheduled in the main rooms
23:19:54 <gwolf> yes
23:19:59 <dkg> i think there could be some good BoF discussion that would be worth giving "top billing"
23:20:02 <gwolf> DebConf is confusing :)
23:20:09 <dkg> but i've never been to debconf before, so i might be confused
23:20:46 <azeem> we could have those "official BoFs" as "Debates" or "Panel Discussions" as far as penta is concerned
23:21:03 <azeem> well, not sure it matters
23:21:24 <dkg> seems like we have a few not-quite-orthogonal concerns:
23:21:39 <azeem> except we need to take into account the number of "official" BoFs when accepting events
23:21:46 <dkg> * "social" or "off-hours" events
23:22:11 <dkg> * "accepted" vs "not-accepted" events
23:22:16 <gwolf> (sorry, must go now)
23:22:23 <dkg> * "BoFs" vs everything else.
23:22:31 * gwolf wishes best luck
23:22:35 <dkg> thanks, gwolf
23:22:44 <gwolf> #agreed this will probably be a long meeting...
23:22:47 * edrz wishes for more past attendees present.
23:22:56 <edrz> :)
23:23:05 <edrz> i'll try to stay as long as I can
23:23:08 * azeem is a past attendee, but a talk team newbie
23:23:23 <edrz> i'm not on the talk team, but just happen to be present.
23:23:46 * blarson is also past attendee present but not on talk teem
23:24:15 <edrz> so, social and off-hours events don't need to be in a main talk room or taped, necessarily.
23:24:24 <edrz> they just need to be scheduled
23:24:31 <dkg> edrz: right, so we don't need to worry about those
23:25:55 <edrz> accepted events get into the pre-conf announced schedule, get videoteam coverage and should be scheduled in the main talk rooms,
23:26:05 <edrz> taking precedence over any adhoc stuff.
23:26:20 <azeem> one problem with taping BoFs is that people tend to discuss all around and it's a nightmare for recording audio, maybe
23:26:35 <edrz> depends. we do have room mics
23:26:52 <dkg> hrm.  does that suggest that we shouldn't schedule them for the main rooms then?
23:27:08 <dkg> and if so, does that mean that they're not in competition with the other talks as far as acceptance goes?
23:27:11 <blarson> last year there were unofficial events scheduled in advance.
23:27:14 <edrz> depends on the number of people interested, i think.
23:27:19 <azeem> 01:20 < azeem> we could have those "official BoFs" as "Debates" or "Panel Discussions" as far as penta is concerned
23:27:36 <azeem> that also implies handing around mics etc. IMO
23:27:59 <dkg> does that sound feasible to folks who've been to these before?
23:28:06 <dkg> or would it kill the nature of a BoF?
23:28:22 <edrz> to my minds debates and panel discussions are not the same
23:28:40 <edrz> BoF implies everyone in the room wants to participate
23:28:51 <edrz> debate is 2 or so persons with opposing view.
23:29:04 <moray> just passing by on my way to bed, but the one lesson from the past on this is that you can't dictate to people what type of event their submission will be
23:29:21 <edrz> panel is 4-8 or so persons w/knowledge of a specific area.
23:29:30 <moray> it was tried to tell people "this should be a talk" or "this should be a discussion", but people will just do what they want anyway :)
23:29:39 <edrz> so true.
23:30:11 <moray> so you can just go by what people say themselves, and worry about the categorisations later
23:30:24 * edrz nods
23:30:41 <micah> has everyone checked out the agenda?
23:30:44 <dkg> so it sounds like we're headed toward the idea that BoFs are legitimate categories
23:31:00 <dkg> and they can be scheduled in the main rooms like other kinds of events
23:31:10 <dkg> is that a fair assessment?
23:31:25 <moray> (good luck anyway, I would stay but it's already late here with work tomorrow)
23:31:33 <dkg> thanks, moray
23:32:00 <micah> most of the BoFs in the past have been typically attended by a smaller audience
23:32:01 <blarson> circle of chairs or table tends to work better for bofs, worse for talks
23:32:02 <edrz> dkg: seems so to me.
23:32:17 <micah> and "audience" isn't really the right word there
23:32:22 <edrz> right
23:32:26 <dkg> if so, that leaves us only with the question of what we call "accepted" and "not accepted"
23:32:48 <dkg> what if we just said "will be scheduled in a main room"
23:32:57 <dkg> and "will not be scheduled in a main room"
23:33:16 <micah> that seems fine
23:33:33 <azeem> ack
23:33:36 <blarson> dkg: doesn't work if we have free slots in main room that we randomly fill
23:33:37 <dkg> that seems like the main decision that we're making here.
23:33:50 <edrz> "will not be pre-scheduled in a main room" perhaps. but, same basic idea.
23:34:30 <dkg> #agreed "accepted" and "rejected" will basically mean "will be pre-scheduled in a main room" and "will not be pre-scheduled in a main room"
23:34:32 <edrz> "won't be promised a slot in a main room"
23:34:39 <dkg> sounds good.
23:34:54 <dkg> can we move to the agenda?
23:34:57 <DrDub_> yup
23:35:10 <micah> #link http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#talks_team_meeting_Wednesday_2010-05-026_23:00UTC__.287pm_NYC_time.29
23:35:14 <azeem> we should just make sure people with regular BoFs don't feel bad if they get a "rejected" message
23:35:23 <dkg> #topic review process: relevance, actuality, acceptance
23:35:29 <dkg> #link
23:35:30 <dkg> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#talks_team_meeting_Wednesday_2010-05-026_23:00UTC__.287pm_NYC_time.29
23:35:37 <dkg> #link http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#talks_team_meeting_Wednesday_2010-05-026_23:00UTC__.287pm_NYC_time.29
23:36:06 <dkg> so the question here is if people are OK with penta's categories.
23:36:15 <edrz> azeem: something along the lines of "there will likely be space and time for you hold your event anyway, we just don't promise to specifically hold a slot for it" or something
23:36:37 <azeem> hrm
23:37:08 <micah> i have issues with both relevance and actuality
23:37:17 <micah> for different reasons :)
23:37:17 <azeem> OTOH, submitted BoFs could be scheduled early, so they don't have to compete with people on-site for some first-come-first-serve thing
23:37:23 <azeem> anyway, topic mismatch
23:37:52 <DrDub_> what BoFs part of a track?
23:38:09 <micah> I've had a broader judgement of relevance than I think others have
23:38:09 <azeem> let's discuss tracks later
23:38:22 <dkg> azeem: yes
23:38:43 <dkg> so i think we should be clear that it's probably too late in the game to significantly change the three categories
23:38:51 <dkg> as problematic as they might be.
23:39:02 <micah> i think debconf can be a little insular if all talks are super relevant. its good to have FTP-masters give a talk for example, but it is also good to have things that are debian related
23:39:19 <micah> but aren't so intensely relevant
23:39:28 <azeem> I like the floss track
23:39:36 <micah> yeah
23:39:51 <azeem> and I really think we should take advantage of the location insofar as some great minds are in easy travel distance
23:40:15 <dkg> so i think it might be important to think about the categories separate from the calculation
23:40:22 <dkg> we can change the calculation approach after the fact
23:40:23 <micah> i guess I'm not proposing we change the definition of relevance, rather that people consider a broader application of the definition
23:40:30 <micah> ie. free software is very relevant to debian
23:40:44 <micah> s/ie/eg
23:40:48 <dkg> if we think that a given category should be less important to the overall score
23:41:16 <azeem> micah: right, but in that case IMO the person should (i) be a well-known member of the debian community or (ii) be a well known member of the FLOSS community in the area they want to talk about
23:41:18 <biella> Actuality is a terrible word
23:41:21 <biella> btw
23:41:22 <azeem> yeah
23:41:31 <biella> i know what you all mean as micah explained
23:41:48 <biella> azeem, i second the floss track
23:41:50 * DrDub is back
23:41:51 <dkg> maybe someone wants to state a clear, concise definition?
23:41:56 <dkg> for actuality, that is
23:42:05 <dkg> just so we're all treating it the same way
23:42:08 <biella> i think debconf should mostly be debian but mostly is the key word: debian is part of a larger social context
23:42:16 <azeem> "speaker seems to know what they're talking about" is what I went with
23:42:17 <micah> i've seen ratings for relevance for something like a FSF talk as really low
23:42:28 <biella> actuality--> it seems like people have verified this person as being capable
23:42:33 <dkg> azeem: what about "speaker knows the topic and is capable to present it"
23:42:34 <biella> right
23:42:35 <micah> when really the FSF is very relevant to Debian
23:42:50 <azeem> dkg: that might be even better, but much more difficult to figure out
23:43:16 <biella> dkg, that sounds right
23:43:25 <biella> i dont think there exists an english word for that
23:43:42 <dkg> azeem: true, but i think if you know that someone can give a good talk it's worth indicating it.
23:43:45 <micah> yeah, which sort of folds into this 'actuality' term... which is really hard to rate if you dont know the person, or have seen the person give a talk
23:43:56 <azeem> ok
23:44:07 * dkg left more actuality lines unrated than other categories.
23:44:18 <micah> the problem is if you know that someone can give a good talk and you indicate it, then you penalize other people that you do not know, who may be really good speakers
23:44:29 <azeem> dkg: OTOH, presentations at debconf weren't historically stellar on average I think
23:44:34 <dkg> :)
23:44:40 <dkg> we should change that
23:45:47 <dkg> #agreed "actuality" should be interpreted as "speaker seems to know the topic and (as far as i know) is capable of presenting it"
23:45:56 <dkg> are we all on the same page about relevance and acceptance?
23:46:10 <biella> right and that can come from first hand experience and from reputation, no?
23:46:17 <micah> so in terms of concrete things on this subject... I'd encourage people to take a broader relevance into account for talks. for actuality, I dont know, I've been putting 0 for people I have no clue about
23:46:44 <dkg> when i have no clue, i leave the radio button in the last column.
23:47:03 <dkg> i wrote a note to the list about that, but haven't had time to look into a patch.
23:47:18 <dkg> (i think the scoring is wrong in the "i don't know" case)
23:47:41 <dkg> to clarify: i leave it in the right-most column
23:47:46 <dkg> should we move on to the next subtopic?
23:48:02 <dkg> #topic review process: scoring calculation concerns
23:48:15 <dkg> i'd raised the concern that the math seems a bit off
23:48:29 <dkg> and in particular the math for the "don't know" case seems plain wrong.
23:48:51 <dkg> i'm also now thinking that maybe relevance shouldn't be as strongly weighted as the other two
23:49:10 <dkg> any other concerns with the scoring?
23:49:30 <micah> i'm glad you noticed that about the 'dont know' case, because I had not thought to double-check that
23:50:07 <dkg> #action dkg will look into a bugfix for penta scoring, in particular for "don't know"
23:50:08 <azeem> I guess it's clear this should be fixed, but it does not affect people rating right now
23:50:17 <dkg> azeem: right
23:50:25 <dkg> ok, moving on:
23:50:31 <azeem> about relevance vs. rest
23:50:42 <dkg> yes?
23:50:51 <dkg> sorry, didn't mean to cut you off, azeem
23:50:56 <azeem> at least for the main room/other divide, this sounds like an important figure
23:51:19 <dkg> yes, i wouldn't want it totally ignored
23:51:58 <dkg> and maybe the tuning i was thinking about would be irrelevant if folks take micah's suggestion about seeing relevance more broadly
23:52:26 * DrDub finished with backlog
23:52:39 <dkg> ok, moving on?
23:52:43 <dkg> #topic review process -- what works well, what doesn't?
23:52:53 <dkg> penta's a bit clunky with review
23:53:02 <DrDub> lots of clicking
23:53:03 <dkg> just to share some tips about how to make it work easier
23:53:05 <dkg> yeah :(
23:53:12 <dkg> i go to the reports view
23:53:19 <dkg> and then middle-click a lot of events
23:53:22 <DrDub> I almost did some greasemonkey scripts to get a better idea of the talks
23:53:23 <dkg> to open them in new tabs
23:53:32 <dkg> and then they load in the background
23:53:41 <DrDub> that might be worth it in the long run
23:53:45 <dkg> and i can tab to them and close as i'm done
23:53:54 <dkg> greasemonkey scripts woudl be nice
23:54:00 <azeem> dkg: yeah, that's how I do it as well
23:54:06 <DrDub> yup, and then I'd open the speaker in a new window
23:54:13 <DrDub> when I was rating each tab
23:54:28 <dkg> DrDub: wow, sounds like you were more thorough than i was :(
23:54:35 <dkg> i think we should propose concret UI changes if we can think of them to make it less painful next time around
23:54:38 <DrDub> I would usually resort to google to get a better idea of actuality for unknown people
23:54:47 <micah> yeah, the ui is pretty painful
23:54:50 <DrDub> I followed the idea of "how much an expert on the topic is this person"
23:55:33 <dkg> anyone up for documenting suggestions for UI improvements?
23:55:48 <dkg> i hear we should be contributing to the software development process ;)
23:56:08 <DrDub> I wouln't touch the ruby code
23:56:22 <azeem> let's have a section on http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Pentabarf and put suggestions there or so
23:56:23 <DrDub> butI can join some penta hack-a-thon for some funky JS
23:56:24 <dkg> DrDub: i'm not asking for code
23:56:36 <DrDub> azeem: good idea
23:56:55 <DrDub> I can poke people to flesh it through globalteam mailing list
23:57:04 <dkg> #info azeem suggests adding a section on http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Pentabarf about UI suggestions for improving the rating process
23:57:06 <DrDub> but it won't happen for this debconf
23:57:13 <dkg> DrDub: true, but we shouldn't ignore it
23:57:24 <DrDub> yup yup
23:57:37 <dkg> ok, moving on?
23:58:05 <dkg> #topic review process: disagreements?
23:58:15 <dkg> anyone noticed any serious disagreements in the ratings so far?
23:58:30 <dkg> i don't think disagreements are bad, btw
23:58:49 <dkg> just wanted to know if there were things folks feel like they'd like to discuss in more detail than the talks
23:58:56 <DrDub> something that highlughts dissagreements on the table sounds like a good thing
23:58:56 <micah> mostly relevance for me, although I haven't gotten through them all yet
23:58:57 <dkg> s/the talks/the review interface/
23:59:21 <dkg> micah: is that something you'd be up for bringing up to the list?
23:59:48 <biella> there were not major ones
23:59:51 <biella> i think
23:59:58 <azeem> it would be nice to have an rating overview page, to see where we don't agree and where we can look closer
00:01:43 <dkg> #action micah will write a note to debconf-team about his view of relevance
00:02:00 <dkg> azeem: yeah, that sounds interesting too
00:03:12 <azeem> what I would /really/ like for next year is CSV export/import and a PDF with all talks and their descriptions, so I can rate stuff offline in the beergarden
00:03:15 <dkg> #info useful UI would highlight wide divergence
00:04:00 <micah> azeem: only if i can join you in the beergarden
00:04:07 <dkg> #info would be nice to have import/export and facilitate offline work
00:04:17 <dkg> moving on?
00:04:25 <dkg> #topic review: contacting people
00:05:03 <dkg> so some talks don't have a lot of detail
00:05:10 <dkg> or have some serious ambiguity.
00:05:27 <dkg> i think it's good practice to contact the submitters of those proposals directly via e-mail
00:05:32 <dkg> and CC talks@debconf.org
00:05:43 <azeem> and note it somewhere
00:05:46 <dkg> (i failed to CC talks@debconf the one e-mail that i sent this way)
00:05:49 <azeem> on the event, I mean
00:05:54 <dkg> azeem: yes, perhaps on the rating tab.
00:06:21 <dkg> #info when contacting a submitter, add a note on the rating tab about how you followed up, and cc talks@debconf
00:06:44 <azeem> f'up needs to be done ASAP
00:06:54 <dkg> yes, agreed
00:07:08 <dkg> though f'up has a different connotation in NYC english :P
00:07:35 <micah> hah
00:07:38 <azeem> heh
00:07:53 <dkg> #info would be good to have a way to flag proposals as "pending followup"
00:08:06 <dkg> any reportbacks from followup?
00:08:31 <dkg> oh, i also think that if a talk seems relevant to a given track, it's worth following up with the track coordinator
00:08:36 <dkg> or asking the track coordinator to followup
00:09:04 <dkg> #info for track-relevant talks, follow up with track coordinator
00:09:11 <dkg> other thoughts or suggestions?
00:09:18 <dkg> can we move on to the next main topic?
00:09:25 * micah nods
00:09:37 <dkg> #topic cut process: terminology
00:09:43 <dkg> i think we covered this at the beginning
00:10:11 <dkg> #info we are just going to say "pre-scheduled for a slot in the main rooms"
00:10:22 <dkg> #topic cut process: 72 talks overall?
00:10:51 <dkg> Ana's back-of-the-envelope calculations were really helpful, as was edrz's confirmation
00:11:02 <dkg> any objections or concerns?
00:11:03 <micah> also the recent discussions about the number of rooms
00:11:21 <dkg> yes, the recent debconf-team@ thread was good
00:11:24 <micah> i think the 72 number is a good one, and helps us have a goal
00:11:43 <dkg> Ana also mentioned encouraging late submissions
00:11:54 <micah> yeah I was wondering about what she meant about that
00:12:15 <dkg> i think she meant it's better to a "low yield"
00:12:17 <micah> i had a feeling she was saying that because she was concerned of the quality that would make up the 72?
00:12:26 <dkg> that is, it's good to be able to reject submissions
00:12:35 <dkg> because it increases the quality
00:12:43 <dkg> of the approved events
00:12:55 <DrDub> sounds good
00:13:11 <dkg> are we actively soliciting late submissions?
00:13:27 <dkg> should we make another d-d-a post or something?
00:13:35 <dkg> it's pretty late :/
00:13:37 <micah> I have told some people that it was ok to submit past the deadline, but always followed up with, "but hurry up, we are flexible, but not that flexible"
00:13:49 <micah> but at this point, only after they have contacted me
00:13:56 <azeem> is there an easy way to figure out which events are late?
00:14:01 <azeem> id > xxx?
00:14:10 <micah> do we want to penalize late ones?
00:14:16 <azeem> well
00:14:48 <azeem> I was thinking more positively, up early ones
00:15:01 <azeem> but I don't mind
00:15:01 <dkg> it does seem like amounting to the same thing, though
00:15:20 <micah> i think i'd rather judge on the talk itself than its punctuality
00:15:41 <micah> if there was a late one that was really good, it would be a shame to not have it over some really poorly thought out one
00:15:54 <dkg> plus, the id number could just be for a title submitted with an abstract "TBD"
00:15:58 <azeem> micah: yeah, but some submission seem to have been really rushed
00:16:05 <azeem> due to the deadline, I assume
00:16:08 <micah> yeah
00:16:17 <dkg> so the punctuality is tough to judge based on that.
00:16:34 <azeem> OTOH, they had time to redo their descriptions since then, or are those frozen?
00:16:41 <micah> no, they can be changed
00:16:48 <micah> they may not realize it though
00:16:56 <biella> i agree with micah like mine :-)
00:17:00 <biella> if i submit
00:17:09 <dkg> #info proposal details can be changed at any time
00:17:29 <dkg> fluid details like that make it a bit hard to know what other people were rating
00:17:48 <micah> yeah this was a concern I had with travel sponsorship rating
00:18:19 <micah> would we consider additional tracks at this point? i know helix was exploring the idea of a security related one
00:18:44 <dkg> it would need to be a solid proposal, i think.
00:18:53 <dkg> with a clear set of talks
00:18:54 <micah> its a bit late to coordinate something like that, but if someone was really gungho and could pull something together, maybe
00:19:29 <dkg> so it sounds like no one wants us to do explicit outreach along the lines of another d-d-a post
00:19:34 <dkg> is that right?
00:19:51 <micah> i think so
00:19:52 <dkg> but personal contacts or outreach are fine (and encouraged?)
00:19:55 <azeem> yeah
00:20:15 <azeem> extending the deadline so long after the deadline doesn't make it look good IMO
00:20:20 <dkg> #info no more d-d-a calls for late talk submissions, but personal contacts or outreach are fine and encouraged
00:20:21 <azeem> or rather, wouldn't make it look good
00:20:26 <azeem> (official extending, I mean)
00:20:29 <dkg> yeah
00:20:36 <dkg> ok, moving on?
00:20:45 <micah> y
00:20:49 <dkg> #topic cut process: evening/after-hours events
00:21:08 <micah> do we have more of those types events than we have meetings?
00:21:13 <micah> err
00:21:16 <micah> s/meetings/days
00:21:23 <micah> s/days/evenings
00:21:30 <dkg> ana listed them in her latest mail
00:21:37 <micah> i had the impression that there were very few of them submitted
00:22:16 * micah looks
00:22:46 <azeem> cheese&wine is the most important
00:22:47 <dkg> she lists 6
00:22:52 <dkg> azeem: :)
00:22:57 <azeem> well, really!
00:23:01 <micah> it really is
00:23:08 <dkg> and notes that the formal dinner is missing
00:23:09 <micah> unless you are vegan
00:23:10 <azeem> last year was a hit, due to the debconf wine...
00:23:19 <dkg> i'm gonna make some debconf beer
00:23:22 <Clint> there are vegan wines
00:23:27 <azeem> anyway, central park run is all week, so not an issue
00:23:28 <micah> dkg: stew was talking about doing that
00:23:40 <micah> or at least clint was trying to talk him into it, he has a good setup
00:23:45 <micah> anyways
00:23:54 <dkg> so it sounds like we've got one per day, roughly
00:23:57 <azeem> group photo should be at the end of a lunch break or so
00:24:07 <azeem> and the others are rather obscure
00:24:24 <azeem> nobody submitted "play mao"
00:24:35 <dkg> yeah, i don't think we need to worry about them
00:24:44 <dkg> but we also need to remember that they don't count toward our 72
00:24:54 <dkg> unless the group photo takes up a day-time slot
00:25:12 <micah> yeah, it probably will
00:25:17 <Clint> group photos always involve sunlight
00:25:24 <micah> sita sings the blues could be a night event
00:25:41 <dkg> will there be discussion as well, though?
00:25:46 <micah> yeah thats true
00:25:55 <azeem> 02:23 < azeem> group photo should be at the end of a lunch break or so
00:26:57 <micah> maybe the 'Do sinusoids dream of electric sweeps' could be done during the wine and cheese party... i got the impression it was a music performance which could add to that
00:27:04 <micah> but thats a bit off topic
00:27:15 <micah> i'm not sure there is much to discuss about cut process about these social/evening events
00:27:17 <dkg> #info there are a reasonable number of evening/after-hours events.  we can probably have one per evening.
00:27:32 <micah> unless we wanted to restrict things if they weren't using free software
00:27:37 <azeem> also, some could be done during debcamp, and reprised on success
00:27:52 <micah> interesting idea
00:27:59 <dkg> what about the insurance/hardware concerns?
00:28:02 <azeem> well, move-on?
00:28:04 <dkg> one of the art pieces required insurance
00:28:05 <DrDub> we discussed before about asking our artists to give Debian a try, if possible
00:28:10 <micah> there was one that required a very large TV and insurance
00:28:18 <DrDub> don't know if we want to keep that
00:28:52 <dkg> yeah, i recommend avoiding events that incur extra insurance costs
00:28:55 <micah> if we cannot provide the resources requested, then the person will cut themselves I guess
00:29:06 <dkg> #action ask venue team about insurance issues
00:29:10 <micah> but that should be part of the followup
00:29:15 * MrBeige made a flat text file list of talks information a while ago
00:29:20 <dkg> maybe the insurance we're already paying covers it?
00:29:29 * MrBeige also working on flat file of ratings information
00:29:36 <dkg> MrBeige: do you know anything about the insurance situation?
00:29:37 <azeem> that'd be awesome
00:30:10 <dkg> moving on?
00:30:15 <MrBeige> ask azeem for URL of talks flat file list
00:30:28 <MrBeige> dkg: what do you want to know?
00:30:43 <dkg> at least one of the proposals is asking for insurance coverage
00:30:52 <dkg> (involving hardware i think)
00:31:03 <MrBeige> ok, I see it: an art installation
00:31:22 <MrBeige> schultmc knows about it, I don't know much
00:31:23 <dkg> https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/561
00:31:28 <micah> #link https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/561
00:31:34 <MrBeige> I searched my flat file for it
00:31:38 <dkg> nice
00:31:41 <micah> Requires a 40'+ HD Display, plinth, insurance, and an installation location
00:31:54 <DrDub> hmmmm
00:32:09 <DrDub> plus secutrity
00:32:17 <azeem> why is a projector not possible?
00:32:18 <DrDub> I mean, somebdoy to watch the display
00:32:20 <dkg> #agreed we do not want to accept events that incur additional insurance costs beyond what we're already paying to columbia
00:32:30 <azeem> hrm, nm
00:32:47 <micah> i think some followup should be done
00:33:10 <dkg> anyone willing to take that on?
00:33:20 <MrBeige> right now I have more important things to take on venue related
00:33:27 <dkg> MrBeige: not you!
00:33:31 <MrBeige> but as I'm doing that I will learn more about the posibility of things like that
00:33:44 <dkg> your hands are too full already
00:33:47 <MrBeige> so i'llk eep it in mind
00:33:49 <micah> i can contact that person to try to get more info
00:34:07 <dkg> #action micah will follow up with submitter of event 561 about insurance/etc
00:34:30 <dkg> #topic cut process: do we want to have a single all-conference event each day?
00:34:44 <dkg> Ana was talking about this as a sort of "keynote"
00:34:51 <dkg> but we all know we have no keynotes ;)
00:35:06 <biella_> good question
00:35:19 <dkg> i think it could make for more cohesion
00:35:20 <biella_> i think when folks like eben speak (do we have others) there should be no conflict
00:35:28 <biella_> and then there is the cohesion factor
00:35:39 <dkg> there will always be conflict from the hacklab
00:35:48 <biella_> hacklab
00:35:54 <biella_> is ALWAYS OPEN FOR HACKING
00:36:01 <dkg> yep :)
00:36:15 <micah> if we have no conflict, then we reduce our overall talks number, right?
00:36:22 <dkg> right
00:36:40 <dkg> but i think 72 is based on 2 rooms * 7 time slots * 6 days
00:36:41 <DrDub> well, 72 includes  that one talk a day
00:36:48 <MrBeige> and risk exceeding our capacity
00:36:51 <micah> i think that if we are going to have such things, then we should come up with a list of what they are and then decide if we are going to have them
00:37:04 <azeem> others might be Bradley Kuhn on GPLv3 and mabye sabdfl on cadence
00:37:14 <azeem> for keynotes, thought the latter is debatable
00:37:15 <azeem> though*
00:37:28 <DrDub> dkg: 2 talks a day were 84
00:37:31 <dkg> cadence isn't faring so well on the ratings ;)
00:37:36 <azeem> also, what about "invited talks"?
00:38:25 <micah> i think the only 'invited' talks that happened were eben
00:38:34 <azeem> ok
00:38:43 <azeem> I meant, are more planned?
00:38:58 <dkg> DrDub: you're right, my math is bad
00:39:19 <azeem> also, what about platinum sponsors and their guaranteed slots, or did I misread that?
00:39:28 <micah> there are such things?
00:39:55 <DrDub> yeah
00:40:09 <Clint> we only have one platinum sponsor at this time
00:40:10 <dkg> there was a proposal in-room here that these all-conference slots get called a "plenary"
00:40:11 <DrDub> we have to ask HP is they plan to exercise that benefit
00:40:40 <micah> how many platinum sponsors do we have
00:40:43 <azeem> bdale could do his Debian-and-HP talk
00:40:45 <DrDub> just HP
00:40:46 <dkg> micah: clint says 1
00:40:47 <micah> and how long is that benefit extended until?
00:40:54 <micah> (in case we get more)
00:41:11 <DrDub> micah: sorry, I don't follow
00:41:27 <azeem> DrDub: what if a platinum sponsor shows up mid-July
00:41:30 <azeem> and wants to have a slot
00:41:44 <azeem> (assuming the schedule is already final by then)
00:41:55 <dkg> are they guaranteed a plenary?
00:41:57 <dkg> or just a slot?
00:42:02 <dkg> how long of a slot?
00:42:16 <azeem> "hey, you can talk in this room during lunch break"
00:42:17 <MrBeige> again: if you expect everyone to be in one room at once, there will be a problem
00:42:50 <dkg> #info MrBeige points out that an all-conference plenary is logistically problematic
00:42:53 <azeem> MrBeige: because the big room is too small?
00:43:02 * micah explained to DrDub in person
00:43:20 <MrBeige> azeem: correct
00:43:35 <azeem> k
00:43:38 <MrBeige> of course, at an all-conference event, people will still be in hacklabs, etc
00:43:39 <micah> DrDub said that if that happens, we can figure it out, and although he has hopes another one will show up, it probably wont happen (and the platinum sponsors so far have not excercised that)
00:43:48 <azeem> well, when the DPL speaks...
00:43:52 <biella_> not everyone will go MrBeige
00:43:59 <biella_> the point is there is no conflict except sleep and hack
00:44:00 <biella_> and NYC
00:44:05 <azeem> btw, what about debian-day, is that also in the big room?
00:44:08 <azeem> or somewhere else
00:44:11 <DrDub> we can have a videoteam left over room
00:44:13 <DrDub> spill over room
00:44:20 <DrDub> that's how they call them at work
00:44:23 <azeem> public viewing
00:44:32 <DrDub> so early birds get to see it in person
00:44:40 <dkg> MrBeige: the biggest room seats 200, right?
00:44:45 <MrBeige> dkg: correct
00:44:46 <DrDub> late commers, chatting peoople, etc go to the spill over
00:44:53 <azeem> which could be the other room
00:45:02 <azeem> (if there's going to be plenaries)
00:45:27 <micah> 200 is the fire-code number, so probably we can put a few more in if we violate that (sssh)
00:45:42 <MrBeige> yeah
00:46:07 * DrDub is going to go off0line. I'll be back on IRC when I get to the train
00:46:16 <DrDub> will catch up on the backlog when I get home
00:46:17 <DrDub> ciao!
00:46:19 <dkg> #info plenary could accomodate more with video-team-supported spillover in small room
00:46:39 <MrBeige> and of course... watching via streaming in hacklabs and so on
00:46:56 * micah suggests moving to the next topic
00:47:00 <dkg> are we agreed that we want a daily plenary?
00:47:17 <dkg> (maybe give or take a day)
00:47:44 <micah> I'm not sure we are
00:47:53 <micah> at least on a daily basis
00:48:00 <azeem> well, a daily keynote would be nice, not necessarily a daily plenay
00:48:03 <azeem> plenary*
00:48:14 <azeem> how many do we have?
00:48:20 <biella_> i am not sure everyday
00:48:25 <dkg> azeem: we've been holding the line against keynotes the whole planning process so far
00:48:25 <biella_> i dont think we have enough
00:48:26 <azeem> dpl, eben, maybe kuhn, bdale
00:48:27 <biella_> but a hadnful
00:48:32 <azeem> ok
00:48:48 <dkg> if the tracks work out, i'd like to have a track-based reportback
00:49:04 <azeem> what would that be?
00:49:05 <dkg> where track coordinators could give brief overviews of interesting ideas and news that came out of their track
00:49:16 <micah> it would be good to have a wrap-up event at the end, perhaps a 'welcome to debconf' event at the beginning
00:49:22 <azeem> yeah
00:49:33 <micah> zach had requested we have something at the end for awarding the BSP prize, for example
00:49:44 <dkg> someone should submit these as proposals ;)
00:49:48 <micah> it would also be good to hear some reportbacks from tracks, and close things out
00:49:59 <azeem> maybe the bosnia presentation could be then as well, unless it's planned to be much longer
00:50:00 <dkg> the BSP prize could go well with the track reportbacks
00:50:31 <dkg> #action dkg will submit a wrapup event with track reportbacks, BSP prizes, bosnia presentation
00:50:42 <azeem> and thank-you-organizers
00:50:45 <dkg> yes!
00:50:51 <dkg> can we move on?
00:50:58 <micah> i think a welcome to debconf thing could just be short at the beginning
00:51:05 <azeem> well, did we decide on keynotish?
00:51:06 <micah> it doesn't need to be a whole even
00:51:17 <dkg> azeem: are you not ok with the term plenary?
00:51:34 <azeem> dkg: I don't mind, just wondering whether we should actively look for them
00:51:41 <azeem> and how to tag them
00:51:46 <dkg> good question
00:51:47 <micah> i think it might be late for that, that was the point of the invited talks thing
00:51:49 <azeem> and/or invite more
00:52:00 <micah> but... if people can think of others, we are flexible, right?
00:52:15 <azeem> the only obvious ones (to me) were Bradley Kuhn and maybe something from Mark Shuttleworth
00:52:28 <azeem> (let's tell Canonical they have to become platinum for him to talk, *duck*)
00:52:43 <micah> i tried to encourage RMS to submit, but he is going to be in china
00:53:02 <azeem> did somebody ask mako?
00:53:44 <dkg> azeem: not that i know of
00:53:57 <micah> his revealing errors one is good
00:54:06 <micah> he's really polished it (saw it at LCA)
00:54:13 <azeem> I saw the video from LCA
00:54:23 <azeem> it would make a nice keynote, plus he's a community guy
00:54:50 <azeem> I think it would fit better as RMS, because people are weary due to his emacs-women-issue and possibly bashing Debian for non-free
00:55:02 <micah> would people bristle at his low debian involvement compared to ubuntu?
00:55:11 <MrBeige> guise
00:55:14 <MrBeige> I have a file you'd like to have
00:55:15 <micah> azeem: what about sadbfl's similar?
00:55:16 <azeem> I don't see him more involved in Ubuntu
00:55:29 <micah> well he was.,..
00:55:39 <azeem> sure
00:56:08 <micah> i wouldn't have a problem with it, just wondering about general 'acceptance'
00:56:09 <MrBeige> flat file similar to the talks list, but includes r/a/a ratings + remarks
00:56:11 <azeem> maybe I'm biased as well
00:56:12 <dkg> we could ask RMS to give a keynote on sexism and male privilege
00:56:19 * micah giggles
00:56:31 <azeem> micah: but if the talk is in no way touching Ubuntu, I don't see the problem at all
00:56:38 <micah> yeah
00:56:41 <dkg> someone want to reach out to mako?
00:56:54 <azeem> btw, maybe also as floss track coordinator?
00:56:56 <micah> MrBeige: thats great, although we aren't finished with ratings, so we might need you to do it again :P
00:57:25 <biella_> mako would be good
00:57:31 <MrBeige> micah: that's easy like a piece of cake
00:57:40 <azeem> I wonder whether he'd be interested and/or had the time
00:57:47 <dkg> i'll make it an #action if someone volunteers to contact him
00:57:50 <micah> he's coming by bike
00:57:51 <dkg> then we can move on ;)
00:58:14 <biella_> i dont think we should have 6 plenarys
00:58:15 <biella_> btw
00:58:17 <biella_> or even 5
00:58:20 <biella_> 3 or so
00:59:11 <micah> i'm trying to understand how this is any different than having a 'keynote'
00:59:20 <azeem> good question :)
00:59:30 <azeem> the difference might be what happens in the second room
00:59:41 <azeem> i.e. whether the plenary is transmitted there, or a secondary talk is held
00:59:56 * dkg reminds people of the #topic
00:59:57 <azeem> though keynote might imply the former (or rather an empty room) as well, dunno
01:00:00 <azeem> but yeah
01:00:08 <dkg> if the answer is "no" this might be an easy one ;)
01:00:13 <DrDub_> i of course like the transmission idea
01:00:29 <azeem> ok, who's going to contact mako? biella_? micah?
01:00:40 <micah> perhaps keynotes are typically the one or two highlighted speakers for an event, usually they are people who are outside of a community, but have an interesting perspective to share
01:00:53 <azeem> and the DPL
01:01:00 <micah> yeah
01:01:01 <DrDub_> the fsf guys' ?
01:01:07 <DrDub_> the gplv3?
01:01:12 <dkg> and we were trying to do this as a more "from inside the community" angle, i think.
01:01:16 <biella_> well is it agreed azeem that we would like him to do that talk?
01:01:24 <azeem> hrm
01:01:29 <azeem> so Eben confirmed?
01:01:34 <micah> he did
01:01:43 <azeem> one issue might be if we just have FSF board members as keynote speakers besides the DPL
01:01:49 <DrDub_> yoohoooo
01:01:50 <azeem> (not sure it's an issue)
01:01:57 <dkg> i think we should encourage mako to propose a talk for debconf
01:02:09 <micah> yeah
01:02:12 <azeem> ok
01:02:13 <dkg> hi DrDub_
01:02:22 <biella_> i will talk to mako
01:02:25 <DrDub_> i was celebrating eben
01:02:25 <azeem> then propose a talk, plus floss track coordinator?
01:02:25 <micah> he has implants
01:02:33 <azeem> not necessarily a keynote
01:02:44 <biella_> i am not sure we can have him coordinate a track though
01:02:46 <dkg> #action biella will suggest that mako submit a proposal
01:02:49 <azeem> ok
01:02:56 <azeem> tracks are later anyway
01:03:33 <dkg> #info we are not agreed on whether we want a daily plenary
01:03:44 <dkg> i propose we move this discussion to debconf-team@
01:03:51 <dkg> since there's no clear sense of what we want
01:03:56 <dkg> and other folks might have opinions
01:03:58 <DrDub_> good idea
01:04:19 <dkg> #action dkg will re-open plenary question on debconf-team@
01:04:31 <dkg> #topic cut process: how to notify people of a decision
01:04:42 <dkg> who should we notify?
01:04:47 <dkg> how will we notify them?
01:05:01 <jeremyb> steal MrBeige's bursary script?
01:05:08 <DrDub_> yeah
01:05:17 <DrDub_> i was typing that ;-)
01:05:22 <jeremyb> heh
01:05:38 <MrBeige> tell me your requirements and I'll do it for Aiur
01:06:01 <dkg> ok, the how is taken care of
01:06:18 <dkg> now, the who
01:06:44 <MrBeige> if people draft it and proofread the mbox I can do the sending
01:06:53 <MrBeige> of coruse draft+check is the hard part
01:06:57 <micah> shall we move on to 'how to notify people of a decision'?
01:07:16 <dkg> i think the how is taken care of, micah
01:07:23 <dkg> i think we need to think about "who"
01:07:49 <dkg> one proposal: after some interval, accept the 50 top-rated talks
01:08:08 <dkg> and tell the 30 bottom-rated talks that they were not scheduled for the main rooms
01:08:15 <DrDub_> what about we tell the lucky 72 they will be scheduled and the rest that they will be notified first hand when the improptu are available
01:08:26 <micah> sorry, i just had major lag
01:08:33 <micah> i got about 30 lines dumped of the backlog
01:08:43 <DrDub_> dkg: i see. good idea
01:09:10 <DrDub_> dkg: you want some waiting queue of sorts
01:09:19 <MrBeige> I think what happenned last year was: accept the top X, reject the bottom Y, discuss the middle invidually for 30-60s each
01:09:35 <micah> yeah, I think that is a good idea
01:09:41 <dkg> so we'd need to schedule a time for that
01:09:57 <micah> we need to think about how much more time we need for followups and finishing the ratings
01:10:02 <dkg> #info mrbeige will write a script to notify of decisions once we have them
01:10:06 <MrBeige> everyone message micah to get the URL
01:10:29 <dkg> #info accept the top X, reject the bottom Y, and schedule a time to discuss the middle individually for 30-60s each
01:10:36 <MrBeige> #info but someone draft the various texts to say on whiteboard
01:10:47 <MrBeige> everyone message micah to get the URL for the ratings text file
01:10:56 <MrBeige> should I mail these useful things to talks@debconf.org ?
01:11:23 <dkg> yeah, though i'm concerned about static snapshots of shifting data
01:11:42 <DrDub_> (by the way, just so we are sure, everbody ranking is expecting to rank all submissions, no?)
01:11:44 <MrBeige> I run a script that regenerates all of these text files every so aften
01:11:57 <dkg> DrDub_: i am not ranking submissins i'm directly involvd in
01:12:14 <DrDub_> dkg: sure, minus those
01:12:17 <dkg> or submissions that are after-hours events
01:12:17 <micah> dkg: we can reconvene and see if there are any reconsiderations that should be done based on that
01:12:19 <azeem> me neither, plus I haven't ranked BoFs or obscure events yet
01:13:14 <DrDub_> azeem: but you're planning to?
01:13:21 <micah> is one week enough extra time for us?
01:13:44 <DrDub_> i think it should be
01:13:52 <dkg> i'm ok with it
01:13:55 <DrDub_> it took me 4hs to rank them all on sun
01:14:17 <DrDub_> but i didnt email anybody, of course
01:14:18 <azeem> DrDub_: at least the BoFs I can
01:14:23 <DrDub_> that takes time....
01:14:42 <DrDub_> azeem: in a weel time?
01:14:49 <DrDub_> agh, week
01:14:52 <azeem> hopefully :)
01:15:03 <dkg> that means followup needs to happen today or tomorrow
01:15:07 <dkg> so folks have a chance to responsd
01:15:09 <DrDub_> the obscure talks need you!
01:15:12 <azeem> I do think it's more urgent to follow up with people though
01:15:24 <DrDub_> indeed
01:15:41 <dkg> #info neeed followup should happen today or tomorrow
01:15:44 <MrBeige> is talks@ authorized to see full list of talks and ratings?
01:15:53 <dkg> MrBeige: yes, i think so
01:15:54 <micah> i thinks o
01:16:00 <DrDub_> what about each goes through the list and finds a few to follow up
01:16:07 <DrDub_> then claim them on talks@
01:16:31 <dkg> when you followup, cc talks@ and note it in the ratings tab
01:16:40 <DrDub_> yes
01:16:47 <dkg> or maybe: note in the ratings tab *before* you follow up to claim it
01:16:53 <dkg> then cc talks@debconf
01:17:02 <DrDub_> but we can claim then email might be faster
01:17:03 <DrDub_> ah
01:17:08 <DrDub_> the tab
01:17:12 <DrDub_> FTW
01:17:15 <DrDub_> good
01:17:34 <DrDub_> (we can agree on that ;-)
01:17:36 <dkg> #info claim a talk for followup in the ratings tab, then follow up and cc talks@debconf.org
01:17:41 <dkg> #agreed claim a talk for followup in the ratings tab, then follow up and cc talks@debconf.org
01:18:10 <dkg> #agreed all should send a handful of followups for the needed talks in the next two days
01:18:49 <dkg> i'm going to postpone the scheduling of the last hash-it-out meeting until the "next steps" agenda item
01:18:52 <dkg> can we move on?
01:19:01 <DrDub_> k
01:19:07 <dkg> #topic particular talks: outstanding concerns
01:19:17 <dkg> any particular talks anyone wants to raise concerns about?
01:19:28 <MrBeige> see email
01:19:31 <DrDub_> canonical?
01:19:38 <dkg> DrDub_: can you say more?
01:19:45 <DrDub_> yes
01:19:46 <micah> maybe we can revisit particular talks concerns next week after everyone has finished going through them all?
01:19:55 <dkg> micah: yes, in general
01:19:57 <micah> (not that we shouldn't do it now)
01:20:00 <DrDub_> fantastic
01:20:03 <dkg> but if there are outstanding concerns now i want to hear them
01:20:04 <DrDub_> yes, let's do
01:20:37 <dkg> DrDub_: do you want to postpone what you were going to say?
01:20:48 <DrDub_> yup
01:20:57 <DrDub_> i would rather go talks@ with it
01:21:17 <dkg> DrDub_: works for me.
01:21:40 <dkg> any other concerns?
01:21:55 <DrDub_> i have concern about tracks
01:22:04 <dkg> DrDub_: that's coming right up ;)
01:22:09 <dkg> #info talks team folks should feel comfortable raising private concerns about individual talks on talks@debconf
01:22:13 <DrDub_> :)
01:22:31 <dkg> i think we already covered contact/followup approach
01:22:38 <micah> the only other concerns I've had other people have also had and that has been represented in the ratings
01:22:43 <dkg> #topic tracks: quick review of existing tracks
01:23:15 <dkg> azeem: can you talk a bit about the state of science track?
01:23:22 <dkg> DrDub_: can you talk about Java?
01:23:39 <azeem> I got a question up front
01:23:42 <DrDub_> my concern with tracks is whether all track coordinators are doing rankings
01:23:47 <azeem> how many talks/slots do we target for a track?
01:23:54 <dkg> DrDub_: i don't think they all are.
01:24:04 <dkg> azeem: i think 4 to 7
01:24:12 <dkg> 7 would be a track that runs all day
01:24:21 <DrDub_> dkg: then we need an advocate for the missing ones
01:24:22 <azeem> 1 or 2 sessions then
01:24:29 <DrDub_> dkg: i can do that
01:24:37 <dkg> DrDub_: that would be great
01:24:40 <DrDub_> i was targetting 5 talks
01:25:02 <dkg> i would also be happy to welcome the other track coordinators to rate tracks relevant to their track
01:25:17 <DrDub_> hmmm
01:25:20 <DrDub_> i oppose that
01:25:22 <DrDub_> i mean
01:25:34 <DrDub_> i oppose people ranking a sample
01:25:41 <dkg> s/rate tracks/rate events/
01:25:43 <DrDub_> because that's skewed
01:25:50 <dkg> i see what you're saying
01:25:51 <DrDub_> a sample of events
01:25:55 <azeem> the question is whether we let track coordinators free hands for their tracks
01:26:06 <dkg> azeem might rank up all the scinece tracks to downplay the others ;)
01:26:10 <azeem> like "you have 5 slots, fill them niceley"
01:26:11 <azeem> nicely*
01:26:18 <DrDub_> i was hoping to let them root for their talks
01:26:28 <DrDub_> as i have done on the wiki
01:26:29 <dkg> yes, that makes sense
01:26:44 <DrDub_> whether the talks make the cut it is up to each talk
01:26:49 <dkg> azeem: do you think a hard number like that is the way to go?
01:26:57 <azeem> no, not necessarily
01:27:03 <azeem> not sure really
01:27:36 <DrDub_> (imagine a 5 talk "fill as you see fit" ubuntu track ;-)
01:27:44 <micah> heh
01:28:32 <dkg> DrDub_: what do you imagine you would do as an advocate for the other track coordinators?
01:28:50 <DrDub_> java track is ok. there's another guy who submitted a java bof, we'll merge them. need to contact him
01:29:05 <DrDub_> dkg: just keep the coordinator on the loop about the talks
01:29:21 <DrDub_> and post extra info the tab and/or talks@
01:29:40 <dkg> so, for example, give a heads-up to the coordinator about talks that are faring poorly
01:29:49 <DrDub_> yeah
01:29:54 <dkg> that might fall under the followup/outreach too, right?
01:30:03 <DrDub_> yup
01:30:11 <dkg> so the track coordinator could encourage the submitter to tighten up the proposal
01:30:23 <DrDub_> yes
01:30:36 <DrDub_> or just know what the proposal entails
01:30:39 <dkg> That would follow the same pattern as the other followup/outreach
01:30:43 <dkg> yes?
01:30:56 <DrDub_> we still dont have a penta box for track coordinator comments
01:31:01 <DrDub_> yes, it will do
01:31:12 <dkg> #agreed followup/outreach should specially target talks proposed for track inclusion
01:31:47 <dkg> #action DrDub_ will make a point of keeping the other track coordinators in the loop on how their talks are faring
01:31:52 <dkg> is that fair?
01:31:58 <DrDub_> yeah
01:32:05 <dkg> #action dkg will also make a point of keeping the other track coordinators in the loop on how their talks are faring
01:32:12 <dkg> i'm happy to take that responsibility with you
01:32:24 <DrDub_> my main concern with my ttrack is people not coming to debconf
01:32:27 <dkg> (unless you want me to back off)
01:32:30 <DrDub_> dkg: sure
01:32:51 <DrDub_> dkg: you vcan do the contacting for starters ;-)
01:33:09 <micah> DrDub_: which people not coming to debconf? the track coordinators, or the talks themselves?
01:33:14 <DrDub_> dkg: it takes me ages to compose a reasonable email
01:33:20 <DrDub_> the talk themselves
01:33:29 <dkg> azeem: several of the science talks tracks had comments in the ratings that suggestesd they might be redundant or lacking in detail
01:33:29 <micah> that can possibly happen
01:33:36 <DrDub_> if you dont have 3 talks, you got no ttrack
01:33:37 <micah> i've seen tracks where one or two talks got canceled
01:33:42 <azeem> dkg: yes, I really need to follow up
01:33:54 <dkg> #action azeem will follow up on science talks
01:33:59 <micah> the coordinator has to deal with that usually
01:34:04 <dkg> azeem: thanks
01:34:07 <azeem> however, those submitted by me were really placeholders because I thought we'd cut off submissions by the deadline
01:34:12 <DrDub_> well it is an eventuality we have to be prepared to ack
01:34:37 <azeem> I was planning to cut a slot into 2-3 pieces with smaller, focused talks on those topics
01:34:42 <dkg> azeem: if a redundant placeholder is redundant, maybe update the submission notes?
01:34:53 <dkg> azeem: sounds reasonable.  can we do that in penta?
01:35:00 <dkg> like change the duration on the scheduling page?
01:35:12 <azeem> not sure; maybe it's easier to just combine them under that event
01:35:13 <dkg> schedule tab, that is
01:35:20 <azeem> anyway, technicality
01:35:33 <azeem> one thing I was wondering was about science-on-debian talks
01:35:45 <DrDub_> (drdub is almost at grand central)
01:35:48 <azeem> there are a couple (and maybe biella will submit something along those lines?)
01:36:03 <azeem> they might also fit into a floss track, though
01:36:24 <DrDub_> sounds good
01:36:43 <DrDub_> we'll have some real info to evaluate the submission, though?
01:36:44 <dkg> azeem: i don't think we have a floss track coordinator
01:36:51 <DrDub_> at least speaker names....
01:36:58 <azeem> I'll try to think tomorrow (it's 3:30 AM here) some more and will try to mail talks@
01:37:03 <azeem> dkg: right...
01:37:08 <DrDub_> (for the science track)
01:37:08 <dkg> i think without a coordinator, we have no track
01:37:35 <DrDub_> dkg: thematic scheduling?
01:37:38 <azeem> dkg: didn't we consider making up tracks later on if we see patterns in submissions?
01:37:47 <azeem> we'd just need to ask somebody to coordinate
01:37:48 <dkg> yes, if someone is up for coordinating it
01:37:52 <dkg> yes
01:38:09 <dkg> micah had mentioned erinn being interested in pulling together a security track too
01:38:10 <DrDub_> the poor scheudling vicvtim?
01:38:39 <dkg> #azeem will follow up on talks@debconf about science-on-debian
01:38:50 <dkg> #action azeem will follow up on talks@debconf about science-on-debian
01:38:53 <DrDub_> krisrose has been annotating talks with potential tracks
01:38:54 <dkg> azeem: is that right?
01:38:59 <dkg> DrDub_: i noticed that
01:39:14 <DrDub_> some are a little over the top but that might be a way to notice that
01:39:15 <azeem> about the science track in general
01:39:18 <dkg> we also still don't have the planned tracks available on the page
01:39:44 <dkg> azeem: if your mail is not private, please use debconf-team@
01:39:49 <azeem> ok, will do
01:39:50 <dkg> instead of talks@
01:39:56 <azeem> do we have any security related submissions already?
01:39:57 <dkg> i want to resist the cabal sensation ;)
01:40:02 <dkg> monkeysphere ;)
01:40:03 <azeem> maybe the one from Guido Trotter
01:40:06 <azeem> and that
01:40:11 <jeremyb> azeem: what would a floss track be?
01:40:13 <micah> also helix was interested in doing a tor one
01:40:24 <dkg> micah: i didn't see that proposal
01:40:27 <dkg> did she make it?
01:40:36 <DrDub_> (just walked 33 blocks like testing, i got the teenager of the year award!)
01:40:47 <DrDub_> (while texting)
01:40:51 <dkg> the kids just say txtng
01:40:56 <micah> dkg: no, she had asked me if it was a good idea. i told her it was late, but she should go ahead
01:40:59 <azeem> jeremyb: general non-debian related floss talks
01:40:59 <DrDub_> ups
01:41:06 <azeem> which would be interesting to the attendees
01:41:13 <azeem> (at least, that was my understanding of it)
01:41:24 <DrDub_> (melikes security track)
01:41:27 <micah> they could be debian related floss talks too (like how to use debian for...)
01:41:28 <dkg> azeem: it seems like the debian community outreach track is where that stuff is going right now
01:41:34 <azeem> ok
01:41:39 <dkg> andy oram and frank brokken are co-coordinating
01:41:52 <dkg> and their stuff has gotten the weakest "relevance" ratings i've seen.
01:42:33 <micah> i can follow-up with helix about talk submission and potential security track
01:42:52 <micah> yeah I think that is because the relevance ratings were based on a strict debian relevance
01:42:57 <dkg> #agreed if a pattern emerges, and a coordinator steps up, we can still put together a track
01:42:58 <micah> which seemed unfortunate
01:43:03 <dkg> micah: yep
01:43:16 <DrDub_> i am at the cross roadsw
01:43:33 <dkg> can we move on?
01:43:33 <DrDub_> with that
01:43:33 <dkg> DrDub_: meaning you were ambivalent about it?
01:43:33 <DrDub_> i mean, relevance makes sense to be to debian
01:43:48 <DrDub_> what about having a dispensation for the floss track?
01:44:08 <DrDub_> ana has been pushing the idea localteam is reaching out too much
01:44:09 <dkg> it's not hard to argue that the health of F/LOSS in general is relevant to debian
01:44:16 <DrDub_> i dont think so
01:44:25 <dkg> you don't think it's relevant
01:44:26 <dkg> ?
01:44:27 <DrDub_> but we better have a clear statement
01:44:32 <dkg> or you don't think we're reaching out too much?
01:44:33 <DrDub_> i think so
01:44:38 <azeem> heh
01:44:42 <dkg> ah, irc
01:44:44 <DrDub_> but it is debconf not flossconf
01:44:49 <micah> i disagree
01:44:50 <dkg> how i love your asynchronicity
01:44:59 <micah> debconf in the past has been very strict about this and IMHO has suffered
01:45:00 <DrDub_> there are mplenty of flossconfs around
01:45:20 <micah> i dont think debconf should be a flossconf
01:45:21 <DrDub_> micah: grreat. I was voicing missing people opinions
01:45:35 <micah> i think we are off topic here right now
01:45:42 <DrDub_> micah: let's have a round on this in globalteam mailing list
01:45:43 <micah> as this was much earlier in the agenda :)
01:45:51 <micah> i already have a task for that :)
01:45:52 <DrDub_> let's make everybody happy
01:46:05 <DrDub_> and I agree with you, btw
01:46:11 <DrDub_> i want reaching out
01:46:12 <dkg> i think micah has already volunteered to bring up the relevance/outreach issue on debconf-team@
01:46:17 <DrDub_> yup
01:46:20 <dkg> thanks micah!
01:46:23 <DrDub_> sorry for the noise
01:46:24 <dkg> ok, moving on?
01:46:33 <dkg> #topic scheduling
01:46:34 <micah> no problemo
01:46:52 <dkg> word on the street is that scheduling is a miserable, hellish, hairy task
01:46:57 <dkg> and we aren't on the hook for it directly
01:47:05 <dkg> otoh, i don't know who is on the hook for it
01:47:26 <DrDub_> i dont get why dont we use a problem solving package to do it
01:47:35 <micah> we certainly have the best overall understanding of the sitatuion
01:47:37 <DrDub_> ana's reply was "penta doesnt support that"
01:47:38 <dkg> DrDub_: because then we have two problems :)
01:47:41 <azeem> btw, the date on http://debconf10.debconf.org/dates.xhtml for "Publication date for official schedule" looks unrealistic
01:48:02 <DrDub_> (what is says?0
01:48:07 <azeem> 15th June
01:48:08 <dkg> #info  the date on http://debconf10.debconf.org/dates.xhtml for  "Publication date for official schedule" looks unrealistic
01:49:39 <DrDub_> hmmm
01:49:39 <dkg> #topic next steps
01:49:39 <DrDub_> we need to bring more people on board
01:49:39 <dkg> nice segue azeem ;)
01:49:39 <dkg> MeetBot: hello?
01:49:39 <dkg> did MeetBot drop off?
01:49:39 <micah> hm
01:49:39 <DrDub_> let's try to recruit new people for doing this?
01:49:39 <MeetBot> dkg: Error: "hello?" is not a valid command.
01:49:45 <dkg> there we go
01:49:57 <DrDub_> the debcamp guy with "help orga team" as workplan?
01:49:58 <micah> delayed
01:50:15 <dkg> #action dkg will follow up on debconf-team@ to see what the scheduling plan is
01:50:22 <micah> i dont think we should solve the scheduling person-power question right now
01:50:27 <dkg> agreed
01:50:31 <dkg> we're almost at the 3-hour mark
01:50:36 <DrDub_> (on a second thought, that's a bad idea)
01:50:37 <micah> i was going to say we should followup on the list and at the next meeting about this
01:50:40 <micah> :)
01:50:47 <DrDub_> good
01:50:56 <dkg> next steps, folks!
01:51:01 <DrDub_> i'm about to get into a tunnel soon ;-)
01:51:02 <dkg> we talkd about a meeting a week out
01:51:15 <micah> we need to have followups and ratings done before that meeting
01:51:15 <dkg> to do the final haggling over the middle talks
01:51:18 <dkg> yup
01:51:23 <DrDub_> let's make it an irc meeting
01:51:27 <DrDub_> with doodle
01:51:33 <DrDub_> etc
01:51:36 <dkg> irc is fine
01:51:39 <DrDub_> ...?
01:51:39 <micah> can we just say same time?
01:51:42 * dkg hates doodle
01:51:49 <DrDub_> ok, ok
01:52:02 <DrDub_> but the current time leaves andreas and ana out
01:52:14 <DrDub_> they have valuable intel from past years
01:52:25 <jeremyb> weekedn?
01:52:25 <DrDub_> no doodle then
01:52:28 <jeremyb> weekend*
01:52:29 <DrDub_> but what about
01:52:30 <DrDub_> yeah
01:52:39 <DrDub_> weekend and earlier...?
01:52:44 <dkg> i can do a week from now
01:52:51 <dkg> i'm going to be pretty unavailable this weekend
01:52:57 <DrDub_> meaning, wednesday?
01:52:58 <dkg> could do the following
01:53:11 <dkg> DrDub_: yes, i can do June 2nd
01:53:19 <DrDub_> alternatively we can 8am
01:53:24 <DrDub_> for an hour
01:53:26 <DrDub_> ....?
01:53:35 <DrDub_> (i wont join ;-)
01:53:52 <dkg> i suspect hagggling over the last talks will take more than an hour
01:53:59 <DrDub_> what about we take it to talks@ ?
01:54:04 <DrDub_> we agree on wed
01:54:09 <dkg> or take it to debconf-team@
01:54:12 <DrDub_> and try to haggle the time?
01:54:13 <micah> if we are going to do meeting logistics, we should have ana, andreas and gwolf as part of that
01:54:15 <dkg> no need to keep it private, right?
01:54:18 <micah> yeah
01:54:24 <DrDub_> sorry
01:54:29 <DrDub_> yes, globalteam
01:54:48 <dkg> can someone take that as an action item?
01:55:03 <dkg> DrDub_: if you want to use doodle, i promise i won't kvetch ;)
01:55:14 <DrDub_> k, i'll email
01:55:36 <dkg> #action DrDub_ will e-mail about followup meeting a week from now (probably on June 2nd
01:55:42 <DrDub_> train is moving, will blank out for 10' very soon
01:55:51 <dkg> i think that's it
01:55:54 <dkg> anything else?
01:56:02 <DrDub_> (great meeting ppl :-)
01:56:05 <dkg> thank you all for being engaged here for so long!
01:56:06 <azeem> cheers
01:56:09 <dkg> epic
01:56:14 <azeem> 4am
01:56:15 <dkg> #endmeeting