On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:29:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I'm not understanding how this works. The community would propose things they are interested in hearing about, a vote would be held, and the results would show topic areas of interest. But then what happens if we don't have any speakers to provide talks for those? Or even if we do have speakers, the workload on the staff isn't reduced at all. The have to vet the topics and results and then vet the talks and speakers anyway.
Yes, I wasn't particularly thinking about workload on staff. I mean, I do think that's important, it just wasn't part of this suggestion. But, it _could_ reduce workload by spreading it out, with people interested in each topic doing the basic vetting of talks and speakers. And if there _aren't_ speakers on a particular topic, or enough people interested in that topic to organize around it despite high voting, then... that's a natural check on the voting process, and insures that interest is actually real from people who will be hands-on.
This could work for hackfests / workshops / activity sessions, too -- people interested in a workshop would vote on that interest, not on a specific implementation of it, and then the interested people would work out the implementation.
But, eh. I think it is an interesting suggestion, but if you all don't like it, I'll move on.
If we take it with Paul's twist and have the Council/staff set the broader topics (I keep thinking of these as tracks), then it might work. A curated set of CFP topics/tracks might indeed be worthwhile. But just having the community propose topics is really no different than having them submit talks on whatever they want.
josh