23:04:03 <dkg> #startmeeting talks team: the final cut
23:04:03 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Jun  2 23:04:03 2010 UTC.  The chair is dkg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:04:03 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
23:04:06 <_hc> are we still waiting? if so I'll hop on over to micah's
23:04:08 <_hc> oops
23:04:33 <dkg> #info present: _hc, dkg, micah, DrDub_, Hydroxide
23:05:00 <dkg> is suspect there will be a bit of discussion
23:05:03 <dkg> followed by a bit of busywork
23:05:07 <micah> #link http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#talks_team_meeting_Wednesday_2010-06-02_23:00UTC__.287pm_NYC_time.29
23:05:08 <dkg> followed by a lot of discussion
23:05:17 <dkg> so if you want to scoot over during the busywork
23:05:23 <dkg> that would be resaonable
23:05:38 <micah> we should discuss agenda before we dive into the agenda
23:05:43 <dkg> indeed
23:05:51 <dkg> that's the first bit of discussion ;)
23:06:03 * Hydroxide is fine with what's on the wiki
23:06:30 <dkg> i'm going to assume that everyonehasread the agenda micah linked to
23:06:44 <micah> i think we need to talk about the BoFs and number of talks that ana had come up with
23:06:45 <dkg> there are a few open questions hidden in there between the lines
23:07:00 <dkg> micah: agreed; and the plenaries
23:07:23 <micah> yeah
23:07:34 <dkg> can we start with the plenaries?
23:07:49 <dkg> i think that's relatively non-controversial, since it was raised on debconf-team@
23:07:57 <Hydroxide> ok
23:08:15 <dkg> (i'm thinking we're still discussing the agenda here, not diving in)
23:08:24 <dkg> #topic agenda overview
23:08:39 <dkg> i think we're all ok with plenaries
23:08:40 <micah> so is the idea to talk about the general idea of plenaries?
23:08:51 <dkg> i think we will need to decide exactly which talks are going to be plenaries
23:08:54 <micah> and not the cut process first subitem on the agenda?
23:09:01 <dkg> micah: yes:
23:09:07 <micah> ok
23:09:18 <dkg> any objections to that being the first stage of the actual cut process?
23:09:39 * Hydroxide doesn't mind but also doesn't want to spend too much meta-time because then this will be a 2-hour or 3-hour meeting
23:09:53 <Hydroxide> so let's do it briefly
23:09:58 <dkg> ok, no objections there.
23:10:13 <dkg> number of talks:
23:10:31 <dkg> (that's micah's 2nd meta-point)
23:10:44 <dkg> i'm proposing that we are scheduling 7 1hr sessions per day.
23:11:37 <DrDub_> aha
23:11:54 <DrDub_> what's there to debate?
23:11:55 <Hydroxide> dkg: is that the same schedule as part 1b of http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/SessionChairProposal ? (ignore the rest of the page)
23:12:13 <_hc> 1 hour sessions sound long to me
23:12:52 <Hydroxide> _hc: if you include time for people to set up, answer questions, clean up, and transition between sessions, and also realize that people don't have to use the whole hour, it's much more reasonable
23:13:20 <_hc> I've been to many a conference, but not debconf, and none had hour sessions
23:13:22 <dkg> we are also scheduling 2 rooms
23:13:31 <Hydroxide> _hc: what duration would you suggest?
23:13:38 <_hc> 20-30 min and 45 seem typical
23:13:44 <_hc> short/long
23:13:53 <Hydroxide> _hc: DebConf routinely has talks that go longer than 20-30 minutes - that would be a very brief talk
23:14:02 <dkg> can someone link to a previous schedule?
23:14:06 <Hydroxide> sure
23:14:17 <Hydroxide> https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/
23:14:18 <moray> _hc: academics are a lot more practice at conveying information quickly
23:14:19 <_hc> Hydroxide: brevity is the soul of wit
23:14:21 <_hc> ;)
23:14:24 <moray> +d
23:14:40 <_hc> panels/workshops/discussions work in an hour
23:14:47 <_hc> but I don't think talks do
23:15:00 <_hc> it encourages people to ramble, time pressure is good for almost all speakers
23:15:01 <moray> _hc: I wouldn't suggest vastly reducing them from previous DebConfs
23:15:27 <dkg> it will also make the process easier if we just assume all talks are 1hr
23:15:30 <Hydroxide> _hc: then there's the issue of language barriers, questions, heated discussions in reaction to the talk, technical issues, etc
23:15:37 <moray> as people *do* ramble etc. and we'll just have everyone overrun and complain at us for why we made them so short
23:15:40 <Hydroxide> https://penta.debconf.org/dc8_schedule/ is two years ago
23:15:48 <moray> it's fine if sessions finish early
23:15:59 <dkg> people can take a break, get food, hack, etc.
23:16:02 <_hc> no, we should run things on time, running things late just screws people who are scheduled later
23:16:21 <dkg> _hc: agreed, we should run things on time
23:16:26 <dkg> i don't think that's at issue.
23:16:42 * micah suggests we get back to the agenda
23:16:43 <dkg> #info _hc thinks talks should not be scheduled for 1 hr
23:16:43 <_hc> I am a fan of being pretty strict, with a timer, and 10/5/1 minute warnings to the speaker
23:16:48 <Hydroxide> _hc: if we want to run things on time AND we don't want to cut off a large number of events before a reasonable conclusion, we can't go much shorter than an hour
23:17:01 <dkg> can we just assume for the meoment that talks are 1 hr
23:17:04 <moray> _hc: no one suggested letting things overrun
23:17:07 <dkg> so that we know how many we need to cut?
23:17:10 <micah> i think its a little late to make talks less than an hour
23:17:11 <dkg> i'd like to keep moving.
23:17:11 <DrDub_> i do like 1h
23:17:18 <moray> micah: yeah
23:17:20 <dkg> we've got a long process ahead.
23:17:23 <DrDub_> k
23:17:28 <Hydroxide> #info everyone else thinks that we should make the slots 1h but not require every talk to use the whole time
23:17:33 * Hydroxide agrees with dkg
23:17:33 <dkg> we can always shorten specific items.
23:17:49 <_hc> enough said, 1 hour is it
23:17:56 * moray is Not Here, btw, too late at night :/
23:18:03 <dkg> so if we have 6 plenaries, then we have 6*6*2 1hr slots == 72
23:18:24 <micah> what are those 3 numbers?
23:18:26 <Hydroxide> dkg: are you scheduling stuff during debcamp too?
23:18:33 <dkg> Hydroxide: no
23:18:36 <Hydroxide> oh, two rooms
23:18:45 <Hydroxide> 6 slots per day * 6 talk days * 2 rooms
23:18:52 <dkg> micah: 6 1hr slots left in the day (1hr was taken up by plenary)
23:18:52 <Hydroxide> not counting the plenaries
23:18:57 <dkg> 6 talk days
23:18:58 <dkg> 2 rooms
23:19:01 <dkg> right.
23:19:22 <Hydroxide> dkg: so this looks indeed like 1b from http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/SessionChairProposal (interpreting "2 hour slot" as "2 one-hour talk slots").
23:19:25 <dkg> if we have 3 plenaries, then we have (3*7 + 3*6)*2 = 84 talks
23:19:56 <dkg> Hydroxide: sounds about right
23:20:02 <dkg> but i'm not committing to any scheduling
23:20:13 <dkg> in particular, i find early morning plenaries sadistic :p
23:20:20 <Hydroxide> :)
23:20:35 <dkg> so, of the meta-items, that just leaves BoFs
23:20:38 <Hydroxide> ok
23:21:04 <micah> (3*7 + 3*6)*2 = 78
23:21:24 <dkg> micah: thanks, dunno how i got that.
23:21:42 <dkg> #info 3 plenaries: 78 talks; 6 plenaries: 72 talks
23:22:00 <Hydroxide> what's the meta-question about BoFs?
23:22:01 <micah> so we have a third room that BoFs can go in, with the exception of those that want v-t coverage
23:22:12 <dkg> some BoFs are also part of a track
23:22:18 <micah> Schapiro is the room name
23:22:19 <Hydroxide> ah
23:22:26 <dkg> and i believe the idea is that tracks will retain physical space and contiguous time slots
23:22:40 <dkg> so BoFs in a track probably shouldn't get moved to Schapiro
23:22:55 <micah> also, if we are doing a cut process, based on 2 rooms, we maybe should put the BoFs off to the side for a different cut process
23:22:56 <Hydroxide> well, I don't think we need to worry about location or timing
23:22:58 <Hydroxide> that's a separate question
23:23:11 <micah> we need to worry about our cut numbers basically
23:23:12 <Hydroxide> right
23:23:21 <dkg> we also don't know whether a given BoF wants v-t coverage.
23:23:26 <DrDub_> yes, my track wants to kickoff with bof
23:23:43 <dkg> DrDub_: and it would be silly to do that in one room, and then have to schlep to another.
23:23:44 <Hydroxide> I suggest that we don't separate out BoFs from anything else for this review process
23:23:45 <micah> we wont know that until we make some changes that ana suggested earlier to penta and ask bof submitters to indicate that
23:23:55 <dkg> micah: right
23:23:56 * Hydroxide doesn't see why BoF versus other format is relevant here
23:24:09 <micah> can we agree that tracks with BoFs shouldn't move BoFs to Shapiro?
23:24:20 <_hc> works for me
23:24:24 <Hydroxide> micah: I don't agree that it's even relevant to this meeting, even if that's possibly good for the schedulers
23:24:27 <dkg> #agreed BoFs within tracks shouldn't be placed in Schapiro
23:24:28 <DrDub_> yes, please
23:24:29 <micah> can we agree that tracks with BoFs shouldn't move their BoFs to Shapiro?
23:24:45 <micah> sorry just added a word to clarify
23:24:58 <Hydroxide> #info Hydroxide doubts the relevance to this meeting of room/timing choices
23:25:13 <DrDub_> fair
23:25:15 <micah> hydroxide: we have 72 talks to choose from, but that is based on 2 rooms
23:25:20 <dkg> Hydroxide: the relevance is in the number of talks we can accept for scheduling in the main rooms
23:25:29 <DrDub_> but there r plenty of bofs
23:25:39 <Hydroxide> micah, dkg: I think we should just schedule stuff for the two main rooms independent of type of talk
23:25:46 <DrDub_> some are small
23:25:49 <Hydroxide> err
23:25:52 <Hydroxide> correction
23:25:55 <DrDub_> i see
23:25:57 <dkg> DrDub_: right; micah's point is that if BoFs get moved to schapiro, we can accept more of the other talks.
23:26:04 <Hydroxide> I think we should just pick 72 talks without worrying about BoF/non-BoF status
23:26:06 <micah> we can also cut less of the BoFs
23:26:09 <Hydroxide> but
23:26:29 <Hydroxide> but I also think that we can let schapiro be used by any talk that wants it
23:26:36 <DrDub_> well small ones can b rejected from big rooms, yes
23:26:47 <micah> if we are going to do that, then we should change our calculations to use 3 rooms instead of 2
23:26:57 * Hydroxide doesn't feel this meeting is conducive to having this discussion for the very first time and wishes we had discussed this via email sooner... :(
23:27:02 <dkg> micah: in that case, we don't have enough talks ;)
23:27:21 <dkg> Hydroxide: this only came up today, i think
23:27:34 <dkg> i agree it would have been better earlier
23:27:38 <dkg> such is life :(
23:27:41 <Hydroxide> I'm proposing that the "officially selected talks" be based on two rooms, with the understanding that additional talks that want to occur can fill in gaps in the schedule or use schapiro
23:27:54 <Hydroxide> and I'm proposing ignoring BoF or non-BoF status for today's meeting
23:28:08 <Hydroxide> I don't think we do have enough talks to schedule based on three rooms, as dkg said
23:28:19 <dkg> friendly amendment: BoFs that get cut today or are in the "middle third" get first pick at slots in Schapiro.
23:28:38 <Hydroxide> if you think it's important, I don't object
23:28:46 <micah> also friendly amendment: we've been asked not to use 'official/unofficial' as labels
23:28:49 <Hydroxide> I don't see it as relevant to this meeting at all
23:28:50 <Hydroxide> micah: sure
23:29:25 <micah> Hydroxide: i'm curious about your reasoning?
23:29:50 <dkg> #agreed we will accept talks (BoFs and non-BoFs) today only for scheduling in the two main rooms; BoFs that are rejected today will get first pick at time slots in Schapiro
23:29:51 <micah> ie. why base on two rooms, instead of 3, when some BoFs are clearly going to be too small to be in either of the two big rooms
23:29:55 <Hydroxide> ok, summary: "talks selected by the talks team will be done based on the assumption of two scheduled rooms. the talks team will encourage the scheduling team to give priority in schapiro to BoFs that we don't include in our list"
23:29:55 <micah> err wait
23:29:57 <micah> i wasn't agreeing
23:30:17 <Hydroxide> dkg: you're a bit trigger-happy with #agreed :)
23:30:40 <Hydroxide> micah: I don't think it's the talks team's place to make scheduling decisions
23:30:43 <dkg> ok, sorry
23:30:53 <micah> i'm not scheduling
23:31:07 <Hydroxide> micah: and in terms of room allocation, it's fine for some of the slots to use schapiro and smaller-talk-room
23:31:15 <micah> i'm saying why would we pick or not pick BoFs based on them being in the two rooms that they would not be in
23:31:18 <dkg> according to the teams breakdown, it actually does fall under the talks team.  but that's not what this meeting is about.
23:31:21 <Hydroxide> micah: or schapiro and larger-talk-room but not smaller-talk-room
23:32:03 <micah> there is a BoF room, and then there are 'talks' rooms, those are based on expected attendance at those types of events
23:32:20 <Hydroxide> micah: that's not how I'd classify the difference
23:32:26 <Hydroxide> micah: some BoFs are large, some talks are small
23:32:31 <dkg> micah: we know that some BoFs are not going to be in Schapiro
23:32:34 <micah> if we have a BoF that will be only 3 people, then why would we pick it or not for the main auditorium?
23:32:41 <dkg> i think it is a mistake to call Schapiro a BoF room.
23:32:49 <Hydroxide> micah: we wouldn't - we are not the scheduling team
23:32:59 <dkg> Hydroxide: there is no scheduling team
23:33:00 <micah> this has nothing to do with timing selection
23:33:05 <Hydroxide> dkg: no, it just hasn't been assembled yet
23:33:06 <micah> this has to do with physical space
23:33:11 <Hydroxide> dkg: we've had various offers of help
23:33:13 <micah> and the calculation for choosing numbers of talks
23:33:28 <Hydroxide> dkg: it's never inherently automatically the talks team
23:33:42 <dkg> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Teams has it under the talks team
23:33:45 <dkg> that's what i'm going on.
23:33:51 <DrDub_> what about accepting all bof and asking the submitterbjhow much space they need?
23:34:11 <Hydroxide> dkg: so are lots of other things that aren't being done by us. anyway, this is a tangent
23:34:24 <Hydroxide> dkg: this is definitely not a scheduling meeting
23:34:27 <dkg> DrDub_: how are we going to know if we can accomodate them if they are large if we don't plan for a slot in one of the main rooms?
23:34:38 <dkg> Hydroxide: agreed, but we need to know what number of talks to arrive at.
23:34:44 <micah> my proposal is that we as the 'talks' team do not make selections at this meeting if the event is a BoF, unless it is part of a track.
23:35:00 <dkg> i'm proposing that we can make this meeting relatively simple by deciding that we are only scheduling for the two main rooms.
23:35:01 <micah> we select talks today for the two rooms, and then look at what the BoF situation is
23:35:16 <Hydroxide> micah: that doesn't make sense at all. there are BoFs that are well-attended, want video, and aren't part of a track
23:35:22 <Hydroxide> micah: e.g., SPI BoF, at least judging by last year
23:35:33 <micah> i swear we had this discussion today already :)
23:35:41 <Clint> were there tracks last year?
23:35:45 <DrDub_> dkg: what about we rank them and then we assign them based on need.,
23:35:48 <DrDub_> ...?
23:35:49 <Hydroxide> Clint: no, but it's not part of a track this year
23:37:30 <Hydroxide> micah: so, what's the obstacle to accepting 72 or 78 talks+BoFs now, giving preference in the case of BoFs to ones that are part of a track but not making it a criterion? then the scheduling people will figure out the best room allocation for those among the three rooms, and everything else can fill in the gaps
23:37:32 <dkg> DrDub_: do we know what their need is?
23:37:41 <Hydroxide> micah: yes that means we won't use every single room every single slot
23:37:46 <Hydroxide> micah: that's not a problem IMHO
23:38:13 <DrDub_> dkg: my comment was to ask them....
23:38:30 <Hydroxide> micah: then it would be the scheduler's job to figure out what the individual talks need in terms of space
23:38:38 <dkg> DrDub_: we don't have that information now, and we're extremely late in telling people whether their talks were accepted for scheduling
23:38:46 <dkg> we need to make those decisions
23:39:07 <DrDub_> dkg: my bad. i understand
23:39:08 <Hydroxide> the schedulers will also have to take into account people who are here for only part of the conference, too
23:40:01 <DrDub_> dkg: my feeling is 50% of bof will be fine in shapiro
23:40:24 <micah> i think it is a mistake to choose a real BoF for one of the two main rooms that isn't part of a track. but i would rather go ahead and not fight this anymore
23:40:54 <_hc> (I don't have an opinion on this bof topic, so I'm going to scoot over the micah's right now, back online in 10)
23:41:01 <micah> see ya soon
23:41:02 <Hydroxide> micah: there's nothing inherent in the BoF format that implies automatically that it won't be worth videoing unless it's part of a track
23:41:14 <micah> Hydroxide: i'm not arguing it anymore
23:41:15 <dkg> micah: your definition of "BoF" seems to be "needs small space, does not want v-t coverage";  given that we don't know which things visibly named "BoF" meet those criteria, i propose we4 move forward
23:41:16 <Hydroxide> micah: though DrDub_ is right that more BoFs than non-BoFs don't need video
23:41:19 <Hydroxide> ok
23:41:33 * Hydroxide suggests we move on then
23:42:12 <Clint> dkg: i would put it as "needs small space, does not need v-t coverage"
23:42:31 <dkg> Clint: fair enough.  we don't have that information either :p
23:42:46 <Hydroxide> dkg, Clint: we have a definition of BoF on our glossary
23:42:49 <Hydroxide> and it's quite different from that
23:42:50 <Hydroxide> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/TalkGlossary
23:43:18 <DrDub_> micah: i'm expecting the 50+ who requested travel sponsorship to attend the travel bof
23:43:35 <Hydroxide> fewer of those are popular and/or worth videoing than other categories of event, but enough are
23:43:39 <Hydroxide> anyway
23:43:40 <Hydroxide> micah said he wants to move on
23:43:49 <Hydroxide> it's already 43 minutes into the meeting
23:43:50 <Hydroxide> let's move on
23:43:51 <Hydroxide> :)
23:43:52 <dkg> yup
23:44:00 <dkg> #topic plenaries
23:44:07 <dkg> so we need to select 3 to 6 plenaries
23:44:23 <dkg> these are going to be events that have nothing scheduled concurrently
23:44:26 <DrDub_> 3
23:44:27 <Hydroxide> can we assume that the opening and closing plenaries are accepted and then just choose 1 to 4 more?
23:44:29 <dkg> and will be in the main auditorium.
23:44:36 * micah agress with Hydroxide
23:44:43 <dkg> Hydroxide: i agree
23:44:46 <Hydroxide> yay
23:44:51 <dkg> any objections to those two plenaries?
23:44:56 <DrDub_> agreed
23:44:56 <micah> DrDub_: are you stating a preference?
23:45:02 <micah> re: 3
23:45:15 <dkg> #agreed opening and closing plenaries are accepted.
23:45:18 <DrDub_> sorry, yes, my pref is fewer
23:45:23 <dkg> hope that wasn't too trigger-happy
23:45:30 <dkg> proposals for a 3rd?
23:45:35 <dkg> i propose Eben Moglen
23:45:41 * micah agrees
23:45:42 <Hydroxide> I was going to suggest either Eben or bkuhn, yes
23:45:45 <Hydroxide> Eben is fine with me
23:45:45 <dkg> i also propose Bits from the DPL
23:45:48 <DrDub_> melikes
23:45:57 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok, that's 4 - sounds like a reasonable number
23:46:05 * micah agrees with bits from the DPL
23:46:12 <micah> i'd like to propose mako's talk
23:46:13 <DrDub_> metoo
23:46:21 <dkg> we've got four open proposals: DPL, Eben, bkuhn, mako
23:46:26 <dkg> and at most 4 slots ;)
23:46:39 <Hydroxide> micah: which is his?
23:46:39 * micah reviewing the list of talks
23:46:44 <micah> Hydroxide: revealing errors
23:47:07 <DrDub_> ubuntu-debian by jorge then
23:47:12 <DrDub_> i vouch
23:47:26 <Hydroxide> micah: I think that's quite interesting and might well attend myself, but I don't think it's more plenary-worthy than many other things that have happened in conjunction with other talks at past years
23:47:43 <Hydroxide> micah: it probably would be a main-room event though
23:48:20 <dkg> any objection to DPL?
23:48:25 <DrDub_> no
23:48:35 * Hydroxide thinks we've unanimously agreed on opening + closing + DPL + Eben
23:48:48 <DrDub_> k
23:48:51 <Hydroxide> and are still trying to decide on 0-2 others. I'm fine withdrawing the bkuhn suggestion
23:48:56 <micah> i could see bkhun being a plenary too, but I'm somewhat unsure
23:48:59 <Hydroxide> since we have enough others including another SFLC person (Eben)
23:49:20 <micah> Hydroxide: i've seen mako's talk before at LCA, it was very well received
23:49:23 <DrDub_> nobody else for jorge castro?
23:49:25 <Hydroxide> micah: I'm sure.
23:49:32 <Hydroxide> micah: as I said, I'm quite interested myself
23:49:32 <dkg> #agreed Bits from the DPL will be a plenary
23:49:37 <micah> also at our previous talks meeting we talked about asking mako to do this talk for a plenary session
23:49:44 <dkg> Any objections to Eben being a plenary?
23:49:46 <micah> or rather we agreed to ask him to submit it
23:50:10 <DrDub_> eben yes
23:50:17 <Hydroxide> micah: although, the fact that DebConf and LCA attendances have significant overlap means that a bunch of people who saw it at LCA might want a different talk to attend at the same slot
23:50:24 <Hydroxide> micah: even if they would have seen it if they hadn't gone to LCA
23:51:11 <micah> i'm not sure how to reconcile this with our previous meeting where we agreed to ask mako to consider doing a plenary
23:51:16 <micah> s/a/this as a
23:51:25 <dkg> #agreed Eben moglen's talk is a plenary
23:51:33 <Hydroxide> micah: easy - we didn't have the full list of talks at that point
23:51:34 <dkg> micah: i thought we wanted to invite mako to talk
23:51:43 <dkg> i wasn't aware that we were inviting mako to do a plenary
23:51:57 * Hydroxide also doesn't remember specifically urging mako to do a plenary, but doesn't have a certain enough memory to deny that we said that either
23:52:02 <dkg> we're at 4 plenaries
23:52:07 <dkg> folks were arguing for 3 earlier
23:52:22 <DrDub_> :-)
23:52:28 <DrDub_> 3 is good
23:52:31 <dkg> outstanding proposals are: mako and jorge
23:52:36 <micah> if you look at the log from last meeting, we were clearing fishing for other plenary ideas
23:53:27 <Hydroxide> I'd also be interested in jorge's talk but worry that it might send the wrong message if we make it a plenary. (e.g. "did canonical pay for that? why aren't we making nexenta's talk a plenary? etc etc")
23:53:42 <Hydroxide> as with mako's, I'll probably attend if I have the time
23:53:51 <micah> and then azeem suggested we ask mako, and people agreed to do that
23:54:24 <Clint> is the definition still that you assume that no one else would go to anything conflicting, or has this "plenary" label taken on a new connotation?
23:54:42 <_hc> plenary means no conflicts AFAIK
23:54:47 <dkg> Clint: plenary means "nothing is scheduled to conflict"
23:54:55 <Clint> right, based on which criteria
23:54:58 <dkg> but there is no mandatory attendance.
23:55:05 <DrDub_> Hydroxide: they "payed" by reciprocicating
23:55:10 <micah> i think mako and jorge would be fun plenaries
23:55:36 <DrDub_> my feeling is eitherb both or not
23:55:43 <dkg> Clint: based on us deciding right now, using our judgement, i think :p
23:55:48 <Clint> judgment of what?
23:55:55 <dkg> what do you think should be a plenary?
23:56:04 <Hydroxide> micah: the log says "biella will suggest that mako submit a proposal" and a couple of lines later "we are not agreed on whether we want a daily plenary" and a couple lines later "dkg will re-open plenary question on debconf-team@"
23:56:18 <Hydroxide> micah: doesn't sound like we had even finalized what a plenary would be at that point, let alone guaranteed one to anyone.
23:56:31 <micah> yes, and then we discussed it on the list
23:56:31 <dkg> i've already given you my arguments on debconf-team@, Clint
23:56:33 <Clint> dkg: i can assign my own logic to the four agreed upon so far, so i guess i would go with those
23:56:56 <dkg> Hydroxide: we *did* agree on a definition for plenary.
23:56:57 <micah> we were fishing for 6 plenaries at the last meeting, some joke ones were suggesgted
23:57:23 <Hydroxide> micah: at that meeting we explicitly hadn't decided that we wanted 6
23:57:29 <Hydroxide> anyway
23:57:36 <Hydroxide> it's now nearly an hour into the meeting
23:57:41 <Hydroxide> can we just do a straight-up vote and move on?
23:57:42 <dkg> what Windows 7™ can do for you
23:57:45 <micah> the objections for not having jorge do a plenary is that it might send a bad message? and the objection for mako is that people have seen it?
23:57:48 <dkg> that would be an awesome plenary
23:57:48 <DrDub_> i don't even knowb what mako talk is about!
23:58:23 <Hydroxide> micah: no, that wasn't my primary reason for mako's. I gave another reason first which I think is more important
23:58:44 * Hydroxide moves to vote
23:58:53 * Hydroxide doesn't want this to be a 3-hour meeting
23:58:56 <dkg> Hydroxide: are you proposing something voteable?
23:59:31 <Hydroxide> hm, coming up with options is hard :)
23:59:47 <Hydroxide> "mako + jorge" vs "neither of them as plenaries, without prejudice to selection as a non-plenary"
23:59:54 <Hydroxide> i.e. both or neither
00:00:15 <DrDub_> neither
00:00:31 * Hydroxide is really not trying to railroad anything through other than keeping some vaguely sane time limit on this meeting. Promise.
00:01:04 <micah> how about voting on one at a time?
00:01:17 <Hydroxide> micah: is there anyone who wants exactly one of them? nobody proposed that
00:01:25 <micah> i dont know unless people vote
00:01:40 <Hydroxide> micah: one vote might affect the second...
00:01:41 <micah> both have been proposed, so I think we should treat each individually
00:01:44 <DrDub_> getting mako and not jorge sends the wrong signal
00:02:01 <micah> DrDub_: what kind of signal is that?
00:02:12 <Hydroxide> ok, in the interest of moving on
00:02:26 <Hydroxide> four way vote, pick one: "both, mako only, jorge only, neither"
00:02:37 <DrDub_> micah: a signal about mixed criteria
00:02:37 <dkg> that seems reasonable.
00:02:52 <dkg> except that people might want to rank and use condorcet :p
00:03:41 <DrDub_> my vote goes to neither
00:04:01 <micah> #link https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/642
00:04:02 <micah> that is makos
00:04:05 * Clint proposes a GR to ban plenaries.
00:04:12 <micah> #link https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/636
00:04:15 <micah> that is jorge's
00:04:17 <Hydroxide> micah: I read it, and I've read his blogs about it too
00:04:40 <Hydroxide> likewise with jorge's.
00:04:45 <DrDub_> Clint: I rather that than mako and not jorge
00:04:46 <Hydroxide> I'm very interested in both as talks
00:04:50 <Hydroxide> but that's separte
00:04:53 <Hydroxide> *separate
00:04:58 <dkg> so far the only person who has voted is DrDub
00:05:07 <Clint> the chair didn't call for a vote
00:05:14 * Hydroxide votes neither (was hoping micah would either vote or say something else)
00:05:18 * micah kicks clint from the meeting he is not attending
00:05:28 <dkg> i like Clint's non-attendance
00:05:29 * Clint slinks away.
00:05:32 * micah votes both
00:05:32 <dkg> i'm calling for the 4-way vote
00:05:39 <DrDub_> Clint: come visit to WP!
00:05:45 <Hydroxide> dkg: right. so far we have two neither, one both
00:05:50 <dkg> i'm abstaining, i think.
00:05:54 <_hc> hmm, vacilating, I vote yes on Jorge, but don't care on mako
00:06:28 <Hydroxide> _hc: heh, you're taking a fifth position in a four-way vote?
00:06:33 <_hc> guess so :)
00:07:34 <dkg> i count 2+ and 2- for mako and 3+ and 2- for jorge
00:08:07 <dkg> sorry: i count 1+ and 2- for mako and 2+ and 2- for jorge
00:08:20 <Hydroxide> heh, I count 2 for neither and 1 for two of each of the other options voted
00:08:25 <Hydroxide> yay unspecified voting :)
00:08:26 <Hydroxide> anyway
00:08:50 <micah> how do we account for the missing people (biella and azeem, who I think would also have voted for mako's talk)
00:09:04 <dkg> we wish they were here to discuss :/
00:09:16 <micah> could we settle on the agreed items, and put the disputed to a vote on the list?
00:09:25 <DrDub_> we dont and we rig the vote!
00:09:32 <dkg> i propose we urge schdeuling mako and jorge for the large room.
00:09:43 <micah> who makes up the talks team has fluctuated very widely between this meeting and the last
00:09:48 <DrDub_> fine w/me
00:09:53 <dkg> it fluctuates every meeting
00:10:06 * Hydroxide is not ok leaving the decision beyond tonight... and yes, who gets to vote is generally determined by who shows up. that's normal.
00:10:25 <DrDub_> mako&jorge parallel to whomever dare sounds good
00:10:29 <micah> ok, sure
00:10:31 <Hydroxide> dkg: I agree those should both be scheduled in the large room
00:10:41 <dkg> OK
00:10:42 <Hydroxide> dkg: or at least, that we should urge the schedulers to do so :)
00:10:54 <Hydroxide> (and I'd do so if I were scheduler)
00:11:02 <micah> my ok sure was me agreeing
00:11:07 <dkg> i think we're settling on 4 plenaries total then: open, close, DPL, eben
00:11:23 <MrBeige> are we going to prevent anyone from using the smaller rooms parallel to a plenary?  would we tell someone that they can't schedule an unoffical event then?
00:11:30 <dkg> #agreed  4 plenaries total: open, close, DPL, eben
00:11:51 <dkg> MrBeige: unless we have strict access control in those rooms, prohibiting their use seems unlikely
00:12:01 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: I doubt it. I think we'd just not include them in the printed schedule
00:12:04 <DrDub_> mrebeige: 2nd room is v-t spill over
00:12:17 <dkg> DrDub_: i think he was asking about Schapiro
00:12:18 <MrBeige> it almost seems that this is a irrelevent debate...
00:12:20 <dkg> not 2nd room
00:12:33 <dkg> MrBeige: it affects the number we shoot for
00:12:40 <dkg> in terms of cutting.
00:13:00 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: my only comment about that now is if you're trying to make us revisit whether a decision we just spent 12-16 minutes on is worth it, we'll spend another 12-16 minutes arguing about that :)
00:13:01 <dkg> so now, with 4 plenaries, that means (7*2 + 6*4)*2
00:13:28 <dkg> #info we need to accept 76 talks for scheduling
00:13:42 <dkg> can we move on to the next topic?
00:13:49 <_hc> :)
00:14:03 * Hydroxide is ok moving on
00:14:03 * micah nods
00:14:12 <dkg> #topic dealing with the "top" and "bottom"
00:14:24 <Hydroxide> ok, so we have 106 talks that need to be scheduled?
00:14:27 <dkg> we have 116 events total that are not rejected
00:14:34 <dkg> 10 of them are unscheduled
00:14:37 <dkg> 4 of them are plenaries
00:14:48 <dkg> that's 102 talks
00:14:53 <dkg> 102 proposals, rather
00:14:58 <dkg> and we are shooting for 76
00:15:05 <Hydroxide> so we have space for all but 26 of them
00:15:11 <dkg> so 26 will not get scheduled for the main 2 rooms
00:15:32 <Hydroxide> and then they can choose to be scheduled in schapiro, or if talks get canceled, or evening hours, etc
00:15:32 <dkg> given the current rankings, we should accept the plenaries + the top 50
00:15:43 <dkg> and reject the bottom 20
00:15:59 <DrDub_> sounds good
00:16:00 <dkg> and then go through the remainder
00:16:03 <Hydroxide> dkg: can you explain where the 50/20 numbers come from?
00:16:06 <dkg> so this is the busy work
00:16:08 <dkg> Hydroxide: my ass
00:16:23 <dkg> i'm open to other suggestions
00:16:34 <DrDub_> fine source! ;-)
00:16:49 <micah> good shit
00:17:12 <Hydroxide> dkg: I mean, shouldn't we just sort by rank, separate out the plenaries and unscheduled events, chop off the bottom 26 (evaluating ones individually if ties make that necessary), and say that's the selection?
00:17:21 <Hydroxide> dkg: possibly after reviewing for absurd results
00:17:56 <dkg> given that our ranking metrics are imperfect
00:18:11 <dkg> i'd prefer to actually inspect the border cases
00:18:26 <_hc> I think we should also curate a bit, that's the idea of this meeting
00:18:33 <_hc> discussion can change people's mind after they've rated
00:18:38 <dkg> indeed.
00:18:43 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok. how many border cases were you planning to evaluate? if it's not too large a number that's ok
00:18:55 <_hc> ALL muhahhaha ;)
00:19:10 <dkg> Hydroxide: who can do the math first ;)
00:19:17 <Hydroxide> _hc: if you can get a time turner out of the harry potter world to make it an hour earlier, I'm ok with that :)
00:19:34 <_hc> how about let's start by accepting the top 50
00:19:39 <micah> i prefer the method dkg suggests over the Hydroxide method
00:19:52 <dkg> we would be individually reviewing 32
00:20:21 <dkg> (102 - 50 - 20) == 32
00:20:52 <Hydroxide> ok, so at 60-120s each we'd be here until 8:50-9:20, plus the likely slippage until 10pmish?
00:20:52 <dkg> this was in the agenda for a while
00:20:59 <Hydroxide> especially given after-the-fact stuff
00:21:02 <dkg> yes, it's likely to last until 10pm
00:21:18 * micah feels it was a mistake not to be more careful during the bursary meeting, so would prefer to do so this time
00:21:21 <dkg> especially if we keep debatingn process
00:21:54 * Hydroxide will leave the decisions to the rest of you - I think that will simultaneously help me get less frustrated with the slow pace, and help the pace for the rest of you speed up
00:22:06 <Hydroxide> I'm sure the selections will be great
00:22:29 <Hydroxide> my comments are already in there for the ones I've rated
00:22:38 <dkg> Hydroxide: will you help in the busywork bit?
00:22:49 <Hydroxide> dkg: what's the busywork bit?
00:22:49 <dkg> i've just accepted all the plenaries
00:22:54 <dkg> accepting the top 50
00:22:58 <dkg> rejecting the bottom 20
00:23:14 <Hydroxide> dkg: can you give me a list of event IDs?
00:23:19 <Hydroxide> dkg: then I'll do a db query
00:23:42 <Hydroxide> I guess I guess I can copy and paste myself if you prefer
00:23:43 <dkg> that would be nearly as much work as me clicking on them, i think.
00:23:46 <Hydroxide> that way you guys can start talking
00:24:29 * Hydroxide will do it at the db level with the right kind of queries, sorted by rating, etc
00:25:25 <dkg> and avoiding Unscheduled talks?
00:25:42 <dkg> and don't count things already rejected or accepted
00:25:50 <Hydroxide> yeah
00:26:00 * dkg suspects this will be quicker to do by hand.
00:26:07 <micah> i'll go through and accept the agreed plenaries
00:27:15 <_hc> by my count, "Debian GNU/Linux as seen from inside the corporate firewall" and below will be rejected
00:28:15 * Hydroxide suggests you start working on the middle pool now
00:28:40 * Hydroxide will say here when he's done the right changes at the db
00:30:11 <_hc> so for something like Step & Repeat, which is an installation, it doesn't need to be scheduled
00:30:24 <dkg> _hc: right, that's marked as part of the "Unscheduled" track
00:30:31 <_hc> ah
00:30:33 <micah> ie. evening type events
00:30:36 <dkg> which presumably Hydroxide is not counting.
00:30:37 <_hc> I think its currently slated to get rejected, but I think we should accept
00:30:42 <DrDub_> I'm attending from a cellphone so I can't look @ penta
00:30:42 <_hc> ah ok
00:30:48 <_hc> phew, lots of caveas
00:30:51 <_hc> caveats
00:30:59 <dkg> it is not going to get either accepted or rejected yet.
00:31:16 <dkg> since it is not scheduled for the main two room
00:31:20 <dkg> rooms.
00:31:39 <DrDub_> (and with one hand, otherb hand has a buffalo wing ;-)
00:33:29 <dkg> i think it would be quicker/easier to do this webmonkey style, given the current situation.
00:33:35 <dkg> i propose people pick a range
00:33:46 <_hc> a gentle reminder to anyone messing directly with databases, perhaps there should be a backup snapshot before any tricky queries are run...
00:33:59 <dkg> open a bunch of talks in tabs, and adjust their acceptance status.
00:34:12 <dkg> i can reject the bottom 20 in 10 minutes that way.
00:34:38 <dkg> can other folks split up the top 50 intelligibly that way?
00:35:13 <_hc> I can take the bottom too
00:35:55 <dkg> Hydroxide: are you aware that we are doing this webmonkey-styl?
00:35:56 <_hc> Hydroxide: how's it going?
00:36:07 <_hc> let's crowd source this thing
00:36:18 <_hc> you got a bunch of people twiddling thumbs
00:39:58 <DrDub_> thumbs. Yes. For phone.
00:40:13 <dkg> i'm totally unclear as to what we are doing here.  i thought i had a plan
00:40:36 <dkg> but Hydroxide has jumped into doing what i thought we were going to be doing
00:41:03 <dkg> and it seems unreasonable/dangerous for us to do this concurrently
00:41:32 <DrDub_> dkg: go for it
00:41:40 <dkg> DrDub_: go for what?
00:41:52 <dkg> if i reject the bottom 20 webmonkey-style
00:41:59 <DrDub_> dkg: your plan
00:42:09 <dkg> and hydroxide's query rejects the *next* bottom 20, that's a bad thing.
00:42:52 <dkg> and Hydroxide is not responding
00:42:59 <DrDub_> dkg: you have done the talks stuff well
00:43:12 <dkg> otoh, if we start discussing the middle 26
00:43:16 <_hc> yes
00:43:21 <dkg> and we accept/reject some
00:43:47 <DrDub_> dkg: just let's go with your plqan
00:43:48 <dkg> then if hydroxide's query rejects the bottom 20 that are currently undecided, then others will get cut
00:44:05 <dkg> DrDub_: i'd feel more confident with that if we could know that Hydroxide is aware of it
00:44:08 <dkg> Hydroxide: please, feedback
00:44:15 <Hydroxide> dkg: I'm done
00:45:26 <dkg> Hydroxide: ok, looks reasonable.
00:45:31 <dkg> thanks!
00:45:48 <Hydroxide> dkg: I restricted to dc10 events that were undecided and not on the unscheduled track, set the top 50 to be accepted/unconfirmed, and the bottom 20 to be rejected/unconfirmed
00:46:07 <Hydroxide> which didn't need to account for plenaries since you had already accepted them. I verified that the set of events I was looking at had 102 entries
00:46:27 <Hydroxide> fwiw, the lowest rank I just accepted was 66 and the highest one I just rejected was 33
00:46:28 <dkg> Hydroxide: sounds right.
00:46:39 <Hydroxide> ok
00:46:42 <dkg> i'm glad we didn't make any decisions in the meantime ;)
00:46:45 <Hydroxide> :)
00:47:13 <Hydroxide> and yes, 32 are left
00:47:46 <DrDub_> 32!
00:47:51 <DrDub_> 2^6
00:48:01 <dkg> indeed
00:48:06 <Hydroxide> DrDub_: 2^5
00:48:09 <Hydroxide> but otherwise, yes
00:48:10 <Hydroxide> :)
00:48:13 <dkg> hr,
00:48:20 <dkg> didn't we expect it to be 26?
00:48:23 <dkg> 10 unscheduleds
00:48:28 <dkg> leaves 22
00:48:43 <Hydroxide> dkg: no. you pulled the "top 50 and lowest 20" numbers out of your a$$, remember? :)
00:49:02 <Hydroxide> dkg: you wanted to review border cases
00:49:34 <dkg> i'd expected: (116 - (50  + 10 + 4 + 20))
00:49:35 <Hydroxide> dkg: let me put it this way - if you reject the lowest 6 rated events that are still undecided and not on the Unscheduled track, you'll have 76 left
00:50:06 <Hydroxide> dkg: that formula you just said gives me 32
00:50:49 <Hydroxide> dkg: whereas 116 total-10 Unscheduled-4 plenaries-76 accepted would be 26 to reject.
00:51:00 <Hydroxide> hence you have 6 more to reject among the remaining 32 if you want to end up with 76
00:51:22 <Hydroxide> which is why I was a bit hesitant to spend 32-64 minutes plus slippage time to eliminate 6 talks :)
00:51:25 <dkg> ok, clearly my math has been bad
00:52:08 <dkg> the goal here is to exercise reasonable curatorial judgement
00:52:21 <dkg> and spending an hour or so to do this final cull seems reasonable to me.
00:52:30 <dkg> a worthwhile use of time for debconf.
00:52:33 <dkg> so
00:52:40 <Hydroxide> ok, as you wish
00:52:41 <dkg> #topic the middle third
00:53:02 <_hc> lets do it!
00:53:49 <dkg> first up: nexenta
00:53:50 * Hydroxide coincidentally (I promise it's unrelated!) has to go to the bathroom - feel free to start without me. will check back soon before helping and/or leaving
00:53:53 * Hydroxide &
00:53:56 <dkg> 643
00:54:19 <dkg> i move we keep nexent
00:54:36 <dkg> nexenta is a pretty interesting debian derivative
00:55:07 <dkg> (btw, i'm imagining that we go from top-rated to bottom-rated here
00:55:26 <dkg> and end each 60s segment with accept, reject, defer
00:55:36 <dkg> and then come back to the deferrals afterward for a second round.
00:55:41 <dkg> dound OK/
00:55:44 <dkg> sound ok?
00:55:56 <DrDub_> yes
00:56:18 * micah agrees
00:56:21 <DrDub_> nexenta ftw
00:56:28 <_hc> sure
00:57:52 <_hc> how about we nominate ones we think should be included?
00:58:35 <DrDub_> sure
00:58:48 * dkg prefers _hc's suggestion.
00:58:53 <dkg> can everyone review the list?
00:59:02 <dkg> or should we paste the list in here so drdub can see it?
00:59:13 <dkg> also: does anyone want to move to a non-logged channel?
00:59:18 <_hc> I have one to nominate: 542 FLOSS manuals
00:59:20 <dkg> i've reserved #debconf-talks
00:59:31 <dkg> if people would rather have candid discussion
00:59:31 <_hc> I don't care about logging either way
00:59:36 <dkg> but i'm happy to be logged, personally.
01:00:09 <micah> i'm fine with being logged, but am thinking about the people who submitted talks and how I can't speak for them
01:00:30 <dkg> ah, true
01:00:35 <_hc> isn't the penta submission public?
01:00:56 <_hc> ratings etc?
01:00:57 <dkg> i don't think so
01:01:06 <Hydroxide> _hc: oddly enough, the individual event pages aren't until accepted, but the full list of submissions is. the ratings definitely aren't public
01:01:10 <micah> if we say _hc's talk is not that interesting here because of his facial hair then it might hurt you if you googled for that in the future
01:01:25 <Hydroxide> deadly facial hair!
01:01:34 <dkg> dude, his facial hair is awesome
01:01:36 <micah> i move that we go to #debconf-talks for this part, just in case
01:01:39 <Hydroxide> I know :)
01:01:46 <DrDub_> dkg: mail to talks@ ?
01:02:03 * Hydroxide was not counting on a 3-hour meeting when he decided not to eat dinner before attending this - so will have to skip out on this part as I feared
01:02:06 <Hydroxide> good luck everyone!
01:02:21 <dkg> thanks for your help, Hydroxide !
01:02:29 <Hydroxide> np. thank you all!
01:02:32 * Hydroxide &
01:03:28 <DrDub_> dkg: r we moving 2 -talks?
01:03:56 <dkg> DrDub_: i think we are, based on micah's point
01:04:27 <dkg> DrDub_: are you asking for an e-mail of the middle third?
01:05:02 <DrDub_> dkg: i'm suggesting rather than pasting here
01:05:25 <dkg> can you get e-mail now?
01:05:32 <dkg> i was going to paste it on your behalf.
01:05:44 <DrDub_> dkg: i'm fine just commenting in specific talks here
01:05:57 <DrDub_> s,in.on
01:06:10 <micah> DrDub_: we all just moved :)
01:06:19 <Clint> DrDub_: you can still do it here
01:06:22 <Clint> we don't mind
01:06:31 <dkg> Clint: you're wecome to attend this meeting if you like
01:06:40 <Clint> no, i'm not on the talks team
01:06:53 <DrDub_> micah: thx. we'll move. can't b in 2 channels w/ shitty client
01:06:54 <micah> its not clear who is
01:07:16 <DrDub_> clint: plis do. neither am i
01:08:09 <Clint> naw, i don't approve of this cabalishness
01:08:27 <MrBeige> we can work on other stuff
01:08:58 <dkg> Clint: i think the privacy concern is about public logs of discussions about people's submissions
01:09:05 <dkg> without asking their permissions
01:09:42 <Clint> ok. i still do not approve
01:12:15 <MrBeige> does anyone have comments on http://whiteboard.debian.net/e1ba3d.wb ?
01:12:23 <MrBeige> it's about getting payments
01:13:54 <dkg> Clint: do you have a proposal that would address both concerns of cabalishness, and concerns about violating the privacy of non-participants?
01:15:39 <Clint> dkg: no, i consider the privacy concern to be FUD; the "abstracts" are submitted for evaluation, not evaluation in secret
01:16:28 <micah> Clint: should we honor your concerns if you aren't on the talks team?
01:16:39 <Clint> nope, that's why i'm sitting here
01:16:42 <MrBeige> I wonder if abstract quality would increase if it was said they'd be made public?
01:16:53 <MrBeige> or people would realize it's a lower barrier than they thought
01:17:01 <dkg> This seems like something to be suggested for future debconfs
01:17:02 <micah> i think otherwise, and would be happy to talk about it later
01:17:25 <dkg> ok, let's have this discussion later.
01:42:41 <MrBeige> before a debconf, has the registration team ever known just how much in fees they will collect ?
01:43:10 <edrz> probably not exactly.
02:48:32 <MrBeige> edrz: that's whaht I thought re: attendee fees... so we can't count on that being any set amount
02:58:22 <dkg> ok, we've decided which proposals should be scheduled for talks in the two main rooms during daytime.
02:58:36 <dkg> #topic notification
02:59:40 <dkg> how do we notify people?
03:00:00 <MrBeige> give me event ids and make a script ?
03:00:15 <dkg> any objections to these texts? http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/TalkDecisionEmails
03:00:25 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: the DB already reflects the accepted or rejected status
03:00:26 <dkg> MrBeige: that would be awesome.
03:00:54 <dkg> should we move those texts to a whiteboard for group editing?
03:00:59 <MrBeige> yeah, I can get it from the db
03:01:26 <micah> MrBeige: did you mean to say *you* will make a script?
03:01:35 <Hydroxide> dkg: the only objection is that we can't yet promise that attendees will be able to schedule things themselves via penta starting July 15. what we CAN do is say that we'll give them a way to schedule their stuff some time after the official schedule is published, which may or may not be pre-conference
03:01:46 <MrBeige> micah: I can make the script if you give me the texts and the logic for conditionsals
03:01:55 <Hydroxide> which might be what that wiki says, but we haven't done it yet
03:01:56 <MrBeige> not many peolpe have the db query access to run it
03:02:00 <micah> MrBeige: great! i just was missing the subject part of that
03:02:05 <dkg> http://whiteboard.debian.net/dc10-talks-mails.wb
03:02:22 <Hydroxide> btw, we should also add a text for the Unscheduled talks, unless there's some additional review the talks team has to do (I doubt it)
03:02:27 <dkg> feel free to edit
03:02:31 <MrBeige> will people be up late?
03:02:32 <Hydroxide> that sounds like something that the submitters can organized
03:02:33 * Hydroxide will edit
03:02:38 <dkg> MrBeige: at this rate, yes ;)
03:02:59 <MrBeige> because I am currently at home and won't do it until I get back to work tonight
03:03:49 <biella> text looks good
03:04:06 <dkg> biella: on the whiteboard or on the wiki?
03:04:13 <micah> why are we asking attendees to schedule things themselves?
03:04:14 * Hydroxide just edited the not-formally-scheduled whiteboard text
03:04:30 <biella> dkg, wiki http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/TalkDecisionEmails
03:04:36 <Hydroxide> micah: that's the normal practice for events that aren't scheduled in the organizer-prepared schedule
03:04:45 <dkg> biella: we've got the whiteboard underway for mutual editing
03:04:46 <Hydroxide> micah: i.e. only for the ones we didn't "accept"
03:04:49 <dkg> http://whiteboard.debian.net/dc10-talks-mails.wb
03:04:55 <MrBeige> dkg: basially say "if X field is Y, send this text, if Z field is W, send this text", and so on
03:05:12 <dkg> MrBeige: got it.
03:05:17 <dkg> are placeholders ok?
03:05:26 <micah> Hydroxide: sure, but we the organizers could prepare a schedule for BoFs
03:05:31 <biella> how about if we add a note that asks people to reconfirm they will still be able to give the talk?
03:05:32 <micah> ie. for the schipiro room
03:05:38 <dkg> $PERSON, $PROPOSAL_TITLE, etc
03:05:39 <dkg> ?
03:05:54 <dkg> biella: can you make that change directly in the wb?
03:06:11 <micah> is there a way to reconfirm a talk in penta?
03:06:14 <MrBeige> dkg: yeah
03:06:31 <MrBeige> dkg: at least one talk has more than one submitter
03:07:04 <biella> sure dkg just wanted to run it by you all first
03:07:05 <dkg> yes, there is
03:07:20 <MrBeige> I guess i'll just do one to each subtitter?
03:07:28 <Hydroxide> micah: there's a confirmed/unconfirmed status, yes
03:07:33 <dkg> micah: yes, most talks are currently unconfirmed
03:07:38 <dkg> MrBeige: that sounds reasonable.
03:07:46 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: oh, good point, the whiteboard stuff should be adapted to handle multiple submissions per person
03:08:01 <dkg> Hydroxide: i'm fine with one mail per talk
03:08:10 <MrBeige> eh.  let's do one email per event?
03:08:13 <MrBeige> that would make it faster
03:08:17 <dkg> people can handle getting multiple mails if they submitted multiple talks
03:08:24 <dkg> MrBeige: i think that's fine.
03:08:41 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: sure. the first template corresponds to a talk (i.e. db event table record) with event_state = 'accepted', the second one corresponds to event_state 'rejected', and the third to event_state 'undecided' (since currently that set of talks is exactly the Unscheduled track set)
03:08:51 <MrBeige> but I guess my level of completeness of late would make me want to make it too good
03:08:56 <dkg> Hydroxide: could you edit the text to say that?
03:08:59 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok
03:09:00 <MrBeige> put it on the whiteboard
03:09:21 <dkg> MrBeige: i think these e-mails are per submitter/event
03:09:32 <dkg> so if an event has two submitters, each submitter gets an e-mail
03:09:41 <dkg> (separately)
03:09:48 <_hc> dkg: finished?
03:10:03 <dkg> yes, we are finished with acceptances
03:10:14 <dkg> as per the /topic, we're working out notification details
03:10:23 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: example sql in the wb now
03:10:29 <dkg> #link http://whiteboard.debian.net/dc10-talks-mails.wb
03:11:10 <Hydroxide> (now fixed for a quoting error)
03:11:21 <micah> i'd like to suggest that the 'not accepted' email not be so rejectiony
03:11:30 <MrBeige> sql is not what it needs, just the raw logic
03:11:31 <Hydroxide> micah: please reword
03:11:36 <micah> and that instead we offer to schedule the BoF rooms
03:11:38 <MrBeige> but I can adapt
03:11:39 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: yes, it's example sql to convey the meaning
03:11:46 <micah> and then other informal things people can do themselves
03:11:51 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: you probably won't use it precisely
03:11:52 <dkg> I think we should be asking "accepted" folks to confirm the talk
03:12:01 <dkg> rather than to un-confirm if they can't make it.
03:12:02 <dkg> seem reasonable?
03:12:10 <dkg> i'll make that edit, if folks are ok with it.
03:12:19 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok. I *think* they should be able to do that themselves in penta, but I'm not certain
03:12:40 <dkg> i can submit a fake talk with my test non-priv user account
03:12:46 <dkg> and try it out if folks want.
03:12:52 <Hydroxide> dkg: or just look via submission controller
03:13:05 <Hydroxide> dkg: that doesn't look any different for privileged or non-privileged people
03:13:16 <dkg> Hydroxide: i'm not enough of a rails person to know
03:13:51 <Hydroxide> micah: my only objection to "us" (== really whoever does the scheduling work) scheduling the 'rejected' events is that it's a huge amount of work as is that will already take significant man-hours to get done by the 15th
03:14:24 <dkg> i just submitted 648 as dkgtest0
03:14:31 <dkg> i'm going to approve it and see if i can confirm it.
03:14:52 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok
03:15:26 <micah> i'm unhappy with the wording of these emails making it sound like people's things have been rejected and its up to them to figure it out
03:15:45 <dkg> nrm, no i can't
03:16:02 <micah> i think a more positive wording can happen, and we can figure it out for them
03:16:05 <dkg> that is, dkgtest0 can't confirm 648 even though it is accepted.
03:16:20 <dkg> micah: can you write an alternate proposal that we can compare?
03:16:22 <Hydroxide> micah: I'm working on a rewording now
03:16:32 <dkg> i agree we don't want to be super negative.
03:16:38 <micah> i already have stated my reasons, and wrote an alt proposal
03:16:47 <micah> am working on an alt proposal for the evening one now
03:17:02 <dkg> how do events move from unconfirmed to confirmed?
03:17:25 <MrBeige> could the conference have to be in a different stage?
03:17:41 <dkg> MrBeige: good question.
03:17:44 <dkg> i have no idea :/
03:17:56 <Hydroxide> MrBeige: that's possible. I have no idea what the conference stage signifies. we can ask Ganneff
03:17:58 <dkg> do we want to poke the accepted folks to hustle it up with the papers/descriptions/etc?
03:17:59 <Hydroxide> or check the code
03:19:47 <dkg> micah: i like your alternate suggestion
03:20:54 <dkg> someone just edited accepted to say "mark your talk as confirmed in the penta interface"
03:21:01 <dkg> but i'm pretty sure normal users can't do that.
03:21:14 <Hydroxide> dkg: did you just verify that it doesn't work?
03:21:29 <dkg> my dkgtest0 user cannot confirm 648
03:21:34 <Hydroxide> ok
03:21:35 <dkg> even though 648 is accepted.
03:21:53 <dkg> or i can't see how to do it anyway.
03:21:54 <Hydroxide> should we just assume people who reconfirm are planning to attend?
03:21:55 <Hydroxide> that might be it
03:22:02 <Hydroxide> that might actually be how it works
03:22:07 <Hydroxide> try reconfirming attendance
03:22:10 <Hydroxide> does that change it?
03:23:07 <Hydroxide> micah: I'm about to s/Debconf/DebConf/g in your texts for consistency
03:23:15 <Hydroxide> and s/Debconf 10/DebConf10/
03:23:40 <dkg> i just reconfirmed attendance
03:23:52 <dkg> event 648 is still unconfirmed
03:24:00 <Hydroxide> ok
03:24:35 <Hydroxide> I think we can just ask them in the email to reconfirm their attendance
03:24:46 <Hydroxide> if they do that we can assume they're going to give the talk they submitted and had accepted
03:24:58 <Hydroxide> and the reconfirmation deadline is before the schedule publication
03:26:53 <Hydroxide> ok, I'll merge micah's text into the text above
03:27:11 <Hydroxide> I'll use most of his, with a bit of my text in areas about e.g. reconfirming and specifying dates
03:29:06 <dkg> OK, i'm going to propose a workflow plan:
03:29:11 <Hydroxide> dkg: I'm done
03:29:20 <dkg> tonight or tomorrow (when MrBeige can get the script working)
03:29:33 <Hydroxide> I propose that the top three texts (two of which are largely taken from micah's drafts) get used
03:29:48 <dkg> we send out acceptance and Unscheduled mails to those folks
03:29:59 <dkg> we do *not* send out the rejected mails tonight.
03:30:01 <dkg> here's why:
03:30:18 <dkg> we have (At least) two flavors of rejected proposals right now
03:30:21 <micah> s/rejected/not accepted/
03:30:28 <dkg> no, rejected.
03:30:35 <dkg> i'm referring to the database terms here
03:30:36 <micah> penta terminology
03:30:38 <micah> agreed
03:30:39 <Hydroxide> dkg: no we don't. I've mostly merged his into mine
03:30:55 <dkg> Hydroxide: i'm talking about rejected event proposals
03:31:00 <Hydroxide> dkg: so am I
03:31:01 <dkg> not two flavors of rejection e-mails
03:31:20 <dkg> some events which are in event_state = 'rejected' are *really* rejected
03:31:25 <dkg> events where the submitter can't come
03:31:33 <dkg> or lunatic nutjob events like "crazy monkeys"
03:31:38 <micah> like me
03:31:41 <Hydroxide> ah
03:31:56 <dkg> some events are rejected with an urge to merge
03:32:07 <dkg> (e.g. java BoF and Science Packaging)
03:32:09 <Hydroxide> dkg: so you want a version of the rejection mail which doesn't encourage them to hold the event at all
03:32:24 <Hydroxide> or what you said. /me will stop interrupting and let you finish :)
03:32:35 <dkg> some events are rejected with the assumption that they will be fine in Schapiro 414
03:32:35 <micah> he is suggesting a workflow
03:32:39 <dkg> etc.
03:32:58 <dkg> sorting those out might require more thinking than we have capacity for tonight.
03:33:08 <Hydroxide> ok
03:33:09 <micah> strike "might"
03:33:15 <Hydroxide> yeah, definitely will :)
03:33:24 <dkg> so my proposal is to send out the accepted and Unscheduled mails tonight
03:33:35 <dkg> and make sure those texts are really good.
03:33:50 <dkg> and defer the rejections until we can sort them out.
03:34:13 <dkg> which might mean a day or two
03:34:18 <Hydroxide> dkg: I'm fine with that as long as someone ensures that the rejections get sent out some time this week, or AT LATEST this weekend
03:34:25 <dkg> i will work tomorrow to come up with categories of rejections
03:34:30 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok
03:34:44 <dkg> though i have no way of knowing how to represent that in penta
03:34:57 <dkg> Hydroxide: i agree, they need to go out really damn soon.
03:35:50 <Hydroxide> dkg: ok. I'm happy to help with technical issues with penta tomorrow and/or thursday, but as for substantive talks team stuff, I'll need to refocus on fundraising and/or other issues both debconf-related and not
03:36:01 <Hydroxide> dkg: I think we've made all the substantive decisions tonight anyway
03:36:08 <dkg> isn't tomorrow thursday?
03:36:13 <dkg> does and/or mean something new?
03:36:14 <Hydroxide> so it is :)
03:36:21 * dkg wipes brow
03:36:28 <Hydroxide> s@tomorrow and/or thursday@tomorrow and/or friday@
03:36:46 * Hydroxide not used to not having a dayjob... :P
03:37:19 <dkg> i plan on doing this on Thursday, as early as possible.
03:37:55 <Hydroxide> ok
03:38:04 <Hydroxide> anything else before the end of meeting?
03:38:13 <DrDub> I'm back
03:38:16 <DrDub> late but back
03:38:19 * Hydroxide is ok with dkg's proposed workflow, in case that wasn't clear
03:38:32 <dkg> DrDub, welcome!
03:38:41 * DrDub will read backlog and send emails
03:38:46 <DrDub> (if necessary)
03:39:04 <DrDub> (but I'm very happy with talks so far :-)
03:41:51 <dkg> are we all ok with all of the Unscheduled events?
03:42:22 <dkg> what about insurance and the Plinth?
03:43:28 <micah> hc said he can get that part
03:43:30 <Hydroxide> dkg: I am ok with all of our unscheduled events to the extent that they don't give us additional expenses (e.g. they should fund the insurance, whoever signs it)
03:43:47 <Hydroxide> dkg: (and to the extent that any permission from e.g. columbia for the art installation is obtained)
03:44:36 * micah proposes that he sends out the evening event emails manually
03:44:44 <micah> and asks people to reply to re-confirm
03:44:54 <DrDub> agreed
03:44:55 <dkg> micah: cc talks@debconf.org?
03:44:57 <micah> yes
03:45:00 <dkg> agreed
03:45:17 <dkg> that means MrBeige's script will only need to do the acceptances.
03:45:23 <gwolf> unbelievably‚ /me is +- following since he joined, but must now part... Greetings :)
03:45:44 <dkg> any objections to the proposed workflow, with micah's amendment?
03:45:55 <micah> do we have a date we want to request reconfirms by?
03:46:15 <dkg> no later than attendance reconfirmation
03:46:30 <dkg> June 10th
03:46:31 <micah> thanks
03:46:34 <Hydroxide> why are we asking for a separate reconfirmation per talk?
03:47:07 <dkg> maybe we don't need it
03:47:08 * DrDub missed having a hotdog
03:47:11 <Hydroxide> is it just to allow special talk-specific discussions between micah and the submitter?
03:47:20 <Hydroxide> for the evening talks
03:47:24 <Hydroxide> evening/unscheduled/continuous
03:47:59 <dkg> Hydroxide: are proposing that we just mark Unscheduled as accepted?
03:48:04 <Hydroxide> I don't think we need a separate reconfirmation beyond the attendee one for the regularly accepted talks; I wasn't intending to have it but could easily be persuaded for the unscheduled talks
03:48:08 <Hydroxide> dkg: no
03:48:17 <Hydroxide> dkg: well, we could, that's fine
03:48:26 <Hydroxide> dkg: it's still possible to distinguish the two in MrBeige's script
03:48:27 <micah> i can also still talk with them about arrangements
03:48:43 <dkg> yup, and the scheduler can distinguish them by track
03:48:51 <Hydroxide> ok, here's my combination of the two proposals
03:49:03 <Hydroxide> for the accepted talks, we just have them do the normal attendee reconfirm
03:49:28 <Hydroxide> for the Unscheduled talks, micah emails them individually, and once he knows that the submitter has a way they and we are comfortable running it, he marks the talk as accepted
03:49:32 <Hydroxide> while leaving it in Unscheduled
03:49:43 <Hydroxide> the submitter still has to reconfirm attendance by June 10th as normal
03:50:18 <Hydroxide> that way, we can later use (accepted talk) + (reconfirmed attendee) to know which events are happening, and have the schedulers deal with that minus the Unscheduled track
03:50:45 <Hydroxide> ok?
03:51:12 <dkg> seems reasonable to me
03:51:19 <Hydroxide> micah: ?
03:51:34 * micah is catching up
03:51:35 <Hydroxide> (re the accepted talks, we'd still use MrBeige's script)
03:51:37 <Hydroxide> ok
03:51:55 <dkg> right, that would go out before any of micah's decisions
03:52:00 <Hydroxide> ya
03:52:03 <micah> that is fine with me
03:52:08 <Hydroxide> cool
03:52:13 <dkg> any objections?
03:53:11 <dkg> #agreed we will ask MrBeige to send a scripted acceptance to the submitters of each accepted talk
03:54:05 <dkg> #action micah will personally contact the submitters of Unscheduled talks and mark them as accepted once the submitter reconfirms
03:54:20 <dkg> #action dkg will sort out the different flavors of rejected
03:54:45 <dkg> #action Hydroxide will give dkg technical support for representing this task in penta.debconf.org
03:54:58 <dkg> am i missing anything?
03:55:39 <micah> just a bike ride
03:55:46 <Hydroxide> clearly a bike ride :)
03:56:02 <DrDub> yay for bike ride
03:56:42 <dkg> ok, i think that's an agreement.
03:56:53 <dkg> are we consensed on the acceptance e-mail?
03:56:54 * Hydroxide suggests #endmeeting unless anything else needs to happen tonight - I don't think the scheduling process does
03:57:06 <Hydroxide> s/scheduling process/& planning/
03:57:17 <dkg> i agree that we cannot deal with scheduling process planning tonight
03:57:38 <micah> damn i was looking forward to that
03:57:47 <micah> har har
03:58:10 <Hydroxide> great work al
03:58:10 <dkg> #action dkg will review tracks situations as wel
03:58:15 <Hydroxide> even if it did take, erm, 5 hours :P
03:58:36 <dkg> i hear no objections to the current whiteboard acceptance e-mail
03:59:22 * micah puts it in the wiki
03:59:27 <dkg> great
03:59:30 * Hydroxide hears only himself eating a banana^W^W^W^Wcrickets
03:59:41 <dkg> Hydroxide: i think crickets aren't vegan
03:59:52 <dkg> #endmeeting