Hi folks,
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops). 3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks) 24 workshops across two days (four tracks)
In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout.
Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day? Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
Paul, Matt, Remy, Jen, Joe, I'm looking at you to drive answers to these questions.
We have at least one sponsor considering providing "speaker gifts", but we need to tell them how many speakers we expect to have.
~tom
== Red Hat
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
Hi folks,
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops). 3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks) 24 workshops across two days (four tracks)
In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout.
Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day?
I continue to believe fewer tracks and talks, and replacing the extra time with workshops led to get things done, would be great for Flock. Too much content means speakers are talking to only a few people in some cases, which is hardly worth giving a talk for (not to mention subsidizing travel in some cases).
Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
Personally I would rather not use up valuable time on them, given my earlier stance. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest fewer tracks and talks and then further eat into talk opportunities with more keynotes.
Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
This was not nailed down, but we suggested a 6 week period would be appropriate. I would suggest we use March 14 as a deadline. We could optionally extend to April 1 (no joke) if needed, which is F-minus-4months for scheduling.
Whatever deadline we choose, I volunteer to put out a F-Mag article and internal info about the deadline.
Paul, Matt, Remy, Jen, Joe, I'm looking at you to drive answers to these questions.
I'd like to see a weekly Flock planning meeting at this point. We need to start picking up the momentum now that SCaLE/FOSDEM/DevConf sprint is over. A lot of these issues revolve around money and internal mechanics, so I'm fine if that happens on a call.
We have at least one sponsor considering providing "speaker gifts", but we need to tell them how many speakers we expect to have.
Ack. Jen, will you set up a call for next week?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
Hi folks,
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops). 3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks) 24 workshops across two days (four tracks)
In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout.
Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day?
I continue to believe fewer tracks and talks, and replacing the extra time with workshops led to get things done, would be great for Flock. Too much content means speakers are talking to only a few people in some cases, which is hardly worth giving a talk for (not to mention subsidizing travel in some cases).
See my other email about attendance though. It's a balance, and we cannot pretend that our attendees are not made up of mostly speakers.
Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
Personally I would rather not use up valuable time on them, given my earlier stance. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest fewer tracks and talks and then further eat into talk opportunities with more keynotes.
Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
This was not nailed down, but we suggested a 6 week period would be appropriate. I would suggest we use March 14 as a deadline. We could optionally extend to April 1 (no joke) if needed, which is F-minus-4months for scheduling.
Whatever deadline we choose, I volunteer to put out a F-Mag article and internal info about the deadline.
We need to include the information about no votes. That wasn't included in the Flock announce. That also means we need to figure out our talk selection committee. Spot and I can probably do that.
Paul, Matt, Remy, Jen, Joe, I'm looking at you to drive answers to these questions.
I'd like to see a weekly Flock planning meeting at this point. We
No meeting without a clear agenda. I'm not convinced we're going to make progress on enough things to meet weekly yet. I'd suggest every other week. Or really, I'd suggest a weekly status email from people that own action items and only meet as a whole if there's something we cannot work on via email. We need action, not meetings.
Besides, most of the people that would be involved in said meeting already have a ton of meetings. Scheduling another would be a headache.
josh
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:07:32AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
Hi folks,
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops). 3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks) 24 workshops across two days (four tracks)
In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout.
Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day?
I continue to believe fewer tracks and talks, and replacing the extra time with workshops led to get things done, would be great for Flock. Too much content means speakers are talking to only a few people in some cases, which is hardly worth giving a talk for (not to mention subsidizing travel in some cases).
See my other email about attendance though. It's a balance, and we cannot pretend that our attendees are not made up of mostly speakers.
It's indeed a balance. I don't know how *many* fewer tracks or talks we could do without upsetting that balance. I'm not suggesting radical change for that reason. Perhaps five or six down to four is more reasonable, and axing all but the first keynote to allow maximum time for other speakers.
Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
Personally I would rather not use up valuable time on them, given my earlier stance. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest fewer tracks and talks and then further eat into talk opportunities with more keynotes.
Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
This was not nailed down, but we suggested a 6 week period would be appropriate. I would suggest we use March 14 as a deadline. We could optionally extend to April 1 (no joke) if needed, which is F-minus-4months for scheduling.
Whatever deadline we choose, I volunteer to put out a F-Mag article and internal info about the deadline.
We need to include the information about no votes. That wasn't included in the Flock announce. That also means we need to figure out our talk selection committee. Spot and I can probably do that.
Paul, Matt, Remy, Jen, Joe, I'm looking at you to drive answers to these questions.
I'd like to see a weekly Flock planning meeting at this point. We
No meeting without a clear agenda. I'm not convinced we're going to make progress on enough things to meet weekly yet. I'd suggest every other week. Or really, I'd suggest a weekly status email from people that own action items and only meet as a whole if there's something we cannot work on via email. We need action, not meetings.
OK, I can concur with that. Main goal is momentum.
On 02/15/2016 11:24 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've > focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of > difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also > unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my > job in previous years.)
Personally I would rather not use up valuable time on them, given my earlier stance. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest fewer tracks and talks and then further eat into talk opportunities with more keynotes.
> Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
This was not nailed down, but we suggested a 6 week period would be appropriate. I would suggest we use March 14 as a deadline. We could optionally extend to April 1 (no joke) if needed, which is F-minus-4months for scheduling.
Whatever deadline we choose, I volunteer to put out a F-Mag article and internal info about the deadline.
We need to include the information about no votes. That wasn't included in the Flock announce. That also means we need to figure out our talk selection committee. Spot and I can probably do that.
> Paul, Matt, Remy, Jen, Joe, I'm looking at you to drive answers to these > questions.
I'd like to see a weekly Flock planning meeting at this point. We
No meeting without a clear agenda. I'm not convinced we're going to make progress on enough things to meet weekly yet. I'd suggest every other week. Or really, I'd suggest a weekly status email from people that own action items and only meet as a whole if there's something we cannot work on via email. We need action, not meetings.
OK, I can concur with that. Main goal is momentum.
Silly Q - is there a Trac we can use for Flock?
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 11:24 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've >> focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of >> difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also >> unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my >> job in previous years.)
Personally I would rather not use up valuable time on them, given my earlier stance. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest fewer tracks and talks and then further eat into talk opportunities with more keynotes.
>> Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
This was not nailed down, but we suggested a 6 week period would be appropriate. I would suggest we use March 14 as a deadline. We could optionally extend to April 1 (no joke) if needed, which is F-minus-4months for scheduling.
Whatever deadline we choose, I volunteer to put out a F-Mag article and internal info about the deadline.
We need to include the information about no votes. That wasn't included in the Flock announce. That also means we need to figure out our talk selection committee. Spot and I can probably do that.
>> Paul, Matt, Remy, Jen, Joe, I'm looking at you to drive answers to these >> questions.
I'd like to see a weekly Flock planning meeting at this point. We
No meeting without a clear agenda. I'm not convinced we're going to make progress on enough things to meet weekly yet. I'd suggest every other week. Or really, I'd suggest a weekly status email from people that own action items and only meet as a whole if there's something we cannot work on via email. We need action, not meetings.
OK, I can concur with that. Main goal is momentum.
Silly Q - is there a Trac we can use for Flock?
Please do not make me use Trac. I will happily setup a Pagure project with whatever you want in it and we can use issues there. Or I'll stand up a bugzilla instance. Or a cantas or trello board. Or literally anything other than trac.
josh
On 02/15/2016 01:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Please do not make me use Trac. I will happily setup a Pagure project with whatever you want in it and we can use issues there. Or I'll stand up a bugzilla instance. Or a cantas or trello board. Or literally anything other than trac.
OK, any of those things would be fine - just saying "can we have *something* to track things in other than email. :-) Not in any way wedded to it actually being Trac.
Best,
jzb
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 01:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Please do not make me use Trac. I will happily setup a Pagure project with whatever you want in it and we can use issues there. Or I'll stand up a bugzilla instance. Or a cantas or trello board. Or literally anything other than trac.
OK, any of those things would be fine - just saying "can we have *something* to track things in other than email. :-) Not in any way wedded to it actually being Trac.
Best,
jzb
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
+1 to pagure.io :) --RemyD.
flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops). 3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks) 24 workshops across two days (four tracks)
In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout.
Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day? Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've
This is all dependent on the number of submissions we actually get of course. Let's assume we'll get enough quality talks to do whatever we want.
I thought last year's balance was just about right, with the exceptions of the council/fesco sessions. I think people are somewhat tired of those at Flock and they aren't well attended any longer. If we do them again, they should be more talk style instead of roundtable.
The feedback I got while we were there is that the workshop days were excellent. People want to come together to do things, and the ability to do that was what people seemed to like the best. I'd recommend no change there.
If we want to change the talk days, I'd say no less than 4 tracks of talks and a 5th being the hallway track. If we do less, we have to accept fewer talks. If we accept fewer talks, our attendance numbers drop. That is particularly true for people who get funding from their company only if they are a speaker.
focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
I have to think about this more. The keynotes from last year were fantastic, but we're going to be hard pressed to find people that are relevant and willing to come to Europe and give a talk.
josh
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:01:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I thought last year's balance was just about right, with the exceptions of the council/fesco sessions. I think people are somewhat tired of those at Flock and they aren't well attended any longer. If we do them again, they should be more talk style instead of roundtable.
I though the simialar thing we just did at DevConf.cz was good -- did you have a different impression, or do you think the situation is different at Flock?
If we want to change the talk days, I'd say no less than 4 tracks of talks and a 5th being the hallway track. If we do less, we have to
Hmmm, do you literally mean having a "hallway track" on the schedule?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:01:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I thought last year's balance was just about right, with the exceptions of the council/fesco sessions. I think people are somewhat tired of those at Flock and they aren't well attended any longer. If we do them again, they should be more talk style instead of roundtable.
I though the simialar thing we just did at DevConf.cz was good -- did you have a different impression, or do you think the situation is different at Flock?
The DevConf.cz session was good. I think the situation is different at Flock. We keep getting the same attendees, which leads to people that mostly already know things, which leads to poor attendance and few questions. The difference in audience tends to lend itself to a better session when they might not be as familiar with the things FESCo and the Council are doing.
If we want to change the talk days, I'd say no less than 4 tracks of talks and a 5th being the hallway track. If we do less, we have to
Hmmm, do you literally mean having a "hallway track" on the schedule?
*shrug*. It happens anyway. Might as well list it for people that like to complain.
josh
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:18:25AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The DevConf.cz session was good. I think the situation is different at Flock. We keep getting the same attendees, which leads to people that mostly already know things, which leads to poor attendance and few questions. The difference in audience tends to lend itself to a better session when they might not be as familiar with the things FESCo and the Council are doing.
That makes sense. I think, also, the leadership Q&A sessions at the first two Flocks were better than at the third because at the first one, FESCo was talking about initial Fedora.next ideas, and at the second, we were doing controversial things (whoo!) and by the third, I guess everyone felt like it'd mostly worked out. :)
That said, I *do* like conferences where there is a joint wrap-up session. A panel and Q&A seems like a decent format for that, but maybe there's something else that'd be even better.
If we want to change the talk days, I'd say no less than 4 tracks of talks and a 5th being the hallway track. If we do less, we have to
Hmmm, do you literally mean having a "hallway track" on the schedule?
*shrug*. It happens anyway. Might as well list it for people that like to complain.
Interesting idea. Maybe we could make it semi-official, with a designated space (room?) and instruct speakers to bring after-session conversations (the people who crowd up to the podium) there, and generally encourage people who are up for random conversation to hang out there.
Which reminds me also of color communication badges... https://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ColorCommunicationBa...
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:18:25AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The DevConf.cz session was good. I think the situation is different at Flock. We keep getting the same attendees, which leads to people that mostly already know things, which leads to poor attendance and few questions. The difference in audience tends to lend itself to a better session when they might not be as familiar with the things FESCo and the Council are doing.
That makes sense. I think, also, the leadership Q&A sessions at the first two Flocks were better than at the third because at the first one, FESCo was talking about initial Fedora.next ideas, and at the second, we were doing controversial things (whoo!) and by the third, I guess everyone felt like it'd mostly worked out. :)
Yes, all possible reasons.
That said, I *do* like conferences where there is a joint wrap-up session. A panel and Q&A seems like a decent format for that, but maybe there's something else that'd be even better.
A wrap up is a good idea. Format can be worked out.
If we want to change the talk days, I'd say no less than 4 tracks of talks and a 5th being the hallway track. If we do less, we have to
Hmmm, do you literally mean having a "hallway track" on the schedule?
*shrug*. It happens anyway. Might as well list it for people that like to complain.
Interesting idea. Maybe we could make it semi-official, with a designated space (room?) and instruct speakers to bring after-session conversations (the people who crowd up to the podium) there, and generally encourage people who are up for random conversation to hang out there.
Maybe!
Which reminds me also of color communication badges... https://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ColorCommunicationBa...
Hm. I've seen something like this at a difference conference (though the colors had VERY different meanings). The idea is good, but somewhat inflexible. It requires group understanding and commitment, doesn't elaborate what no badge means, requires explanation at check-in to every individual, and can be difficult to deal with breaches in protocol. Mostly because they tend to simply be misunderstandings or someone not even seeing the badge.
If we were to do this, it might be best to simply offer all 3 colors in one of those clear pin-on badge holder things. People can rotate their color based on their mood (if they remember), but they'll need to be understanding if people don't notice.
josh
On 02/12/2016 11:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I have to think about this more. The keynotes from last year were fantastic, but we're going to be hard pressed to find people that are relevant and willing to come to Europe and give a talk.
So, I think *no* keynotes would be bad. I would hope we can find at least one good keynote that would help drive attendance and set tone for the conference. Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
Best,
jzb
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I have to think about this more. The keynotes from last year were fantastic, but we're going to be hard pressed to find people that are relevant and willing to come to Europe and give a talk.
So, I think *no* keynotes would be bad. I would hope we can find at least one good keynote that would help drive attendance and set tone for the conference. Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
It sounds reasonable, but perhaps not feasible. Particularly finding a keynote speaker that matches to the tone and content of the conference.
Spot would be in the best position to describe the difficulties of finding keynote speakers, particularly in Europe. I watched it from a 50ft view and it was not easy at all. Whoever takes on that task needs to be aware they should start on it ASAP.
josh
On 02/15/2016 11:33 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
It sounds reasonable, but perhaps not feasible. Particularly finding a keynote speaker that matches to the tone and content of the conference.
Spot would be in the best position to describe the difficulties of finding keynote speakers, particularly in Europe. I watched it from a 50ft view and it was not easy at all. Whoever takes on that task needs to be aware they should start on it ASAP.
I think we should at least make the attempt to have two keynotes, one for the FPL and one for someone who is doing interesting work in FLOSS space (not Fedora or Red Hat) in Europe. Could also be someone who is doing something for FLOSS culture outside of the usual software space.
To give you an idea of what I mean, previous keynotes focused on combating imposter syndrome in FOSS, eNable open source prosthetics, FOSS in the EU govt, the Novena open source laptop, Open Source 3d printing, and creating Free fonts.
A few important details:
* We will not pay for a speaker (sorry ESR). * We may, however, cover reasonable travel costs and lodging like we would for other speakers who require it. * Keynote speaker needs to be fluent in English and present in that language. * Time slot is 45-50 minutes total.
I'm happy to assist in this effort, but I cannot lead it this year. It would be more practical for someone on the local event team to drive this.
~tom
== Red Hat
2016-02-15 17:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com:
I think we should at least make the attempt to have two keynotes, one for the FPL and one for someone who is doing interesting work in FLOSS space (not Fedora or Red Hat) in Europe. Could also be someone who is doing something for FLOSS culture outside of the usual software space.
To give you an idea of what I mean, previous keynotes focused on combating imposter syndrome in FOSS, eNable open source prosthetics, FOSS in the EU govt, the Novena open source laptop, Open Source 3d printing, and creating Free fonts.
A few important details:
- We will not pay for a speaker (sorry ESR).
- We may, however, cover reasonable travel costs and lodging like we
would for other speakers who require it.
- Keynote speaker needs to be fluent in English and present in that
language.
- Time slot is 45-50 minutes total.
I'm happy to assist in this effort, but I cannot lead it this year. It would be more practical for someone on the local event team to drive this.
~tom
If we can cover reasonable travel costs, here are few ideas: * Harald Welte from GPL violations fame, lives in Berlin, so few hours drive * Django Girls founders are from Poland (one of them at least,lives in UK now) * Stephan Janssen who founded devoxxx4kids (Belgium)
Regards, H,
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2016-02-15 17:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com:
I think we should at least make the attempt to have two keynotes, one for the FPL and one for someone who is doing interesting work in FLOSS space (not Fedora or Red Hat) in Europe. Could also be someone who is doing something for FLOSS culture outside of the usual software space.
To give you an idea of what I mean, previous keynotes focused on combating imposter syndrome in FOSS, eNable open source prosthetics, FOSS in the EU govt, the Novena open source laptop, Open Source 3d printing, and creating Free fonts.
A few important details:
- We will not pay for a speaker (sorry ESR).
- We may, however, cover reasonable travel costs and lodging like we
would for other speakers who require it.
- Keynote speaker needs to be fluent in English and present in that
language.
- Time slot is 45-50 minutes total.
I'm happy to assist in this effort, but I cannot lead it this year. It would be more practical for someone on the local event team to drive
this.
~tom
If we can cover reasonable travel costs, here are few ideas:
- Harald Welte from GPL violations fame, lives in Berlin, so few hours
drive
- Django Girls founders are from Poland (one of them at least,lives in UK
now)
- Stephan Janssen who founded devoxxx4kids (Belgium)
Regards, H, _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
A couple of thoughts/suggestions:
Raspberry Pi Foundation is also in UK (but we should make sure that Fedora is running on those if we're going to invite a keynote from them ;) )
It'd be a big pull, but someone internet-famous like Corey Doctorow would draw lots of folks?
One of the best speakers in the Distro Devroom at FOSDEM was Brian "Red Beard" -- CoreOS hacker, and former Red Hatter: https://twitter.com/brianredbeard
There is an open loop between him and Rel-Eng about getting releasing Fedora in Rocket, but I'm not sure if that will bear fruit by Flock-time? Containers in general are a "hot topic" even though this does not fall into the "docker docker docker" bucket.
I just watched the Mickens ketnote from Lisa, and it was pretty funny (though a little borderline on the 'online dating' and other semi-controversial topics.)
Someone from the Public Sector would be nice, and follow with our "doing good" themes from Keynotes of the past. I think a very interesting Friend of FOSS would be Chris Fabian of UNICEF.
He has been working with our partners at RIT to help spin up the LibreCorps initiative to get students hacking on FOSS in developing nations, and is also the co-lead on a new Open Source Venture Fund that targets Open Source Startups around the world. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-02/01/unicef-innovation-fund-startu...
Me/Spot can easily open the loop with Fabian, though we'd need to do it sooner than later, as he travels quite a bit as-is.
Hope These Help, --RemyD.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Remy DeCausemaker decause@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2016-02-15 17:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com:
I think we should at least make the attempt to have two keynotes, one for the FPL and one for someone who is doing interesting work in FLOSS space (not Fedora or Red Hat) in Europe. Could also be someone who is doing something for FLOSS culture outside of the usual software space.
To give you an idea of what I mean, previous keynotes focused on combating imposter syndrome in FOSS, eNable open source prosthetics, FOSS in the EU govt, the Novena open source laptop, Open Source 3d printing, and creating Free fonts.
A few important details:
- We will not pay for a speaker (sorry ESR).
- We may, however, cover reasonable travel costs and lodging like we
would for other speakers who require it.
- Keynote speaker needs to be fluent in English and present in that
language.
- Time slot is 45-50 minutes total.
I'm happy to assist in this effort, but I cannot lead it this year. It would be more practical for someone on the local event team to drive this.
~tom
If we can cover reasonable travel costs, here are few ideas:
- Harald Welte from GPL violations fame, lives in Berlin, so few hours
drive
- Django Girls founders are from Poland (one of them at least,lives in UK
now)
- Stephan Janssen who founded devoxxx4kids (Belgium)
Regards, H, _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
A couple of thoughts/suggestions:
Raspberry Pi Foundation is also in UK (but we should make sure that Fedora is running on those if we're going to invite a keynote from them ;) )
It doesn't. Different arch not supported in Fedora. Previous efforts around it have been abandoned or are just starting. We has no pi.
josh
Is this the best way to share suggestions, on this thread, because I have someone in mind? :-)
~m
On February 15, 2016 12:24:06 PM EST, "Haïkel" hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2016-02-15 17:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com:
I think we should at least make the attempt to have two keynotes, one for the FPL and one for someone who is doing interesting work in
FLOSS
space (not Fedora or Red Hat) in Europe. Could also be someone who is doing something for FLOSS culture outside of the usual software
space.
To give you an idea of what I mean, previous keynotes focused on combating imposter syndrome in FOSS, eNable open source prosthetics, FOSS in the EU govt, the Novena open source laptop, Open Source 3d printing, and creating Free fonts.
A few important details:
- We will not pay for a speaker (sorry ESR).
- We may, however, cover reasonable travel costs and lodging like we
would for other speakers who require it.
- Keynote speaker needs to be fluent in English and present in that
language.
- Time slot is 45-50 minutes total.
I'm happy to assist in this effort, but I cannot lead it this year.
It
would be more practical for someone on the local event team to drive
this.
~tom
If we can cover reasonable travel costs, here are few ideas:
- Harald Welte from GPL violations fame, lives in Berlin, so few hours
drive
- Django Girls founders are from Poland (one of them at least,lives in
UK now)
- Stephan Janssen who founded devoxxx4kids (Belgium)
Regards, H, _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is this the best way to share suggestions, on this thread, because I have someone in mind? :-)
Yes.
josh
Okay, some ideas for keynoters:
Femke Snelting - from the Libre Graphics community. She could talk about her work with the Libre Graphics Research Unit or a number of other projects she's been involved with at the intersection of design and floss. I think she is based in Belgium. I think she would have a very fresh perspective to give to Fedora on FLOSS.
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in Fedora. He runs workshops worldwide to enable people to design their own fonts using FLOSS (crafting type - i took it and it was amazing) and he is also a strong advocate for open font licensing and is in charge of Googles web fonts project - he is based in the UK.
Ana Isabel Carvalho and Ricardo Lafuente - founders of Manufactura Independente, a design studio / consultancy that uses open source tools and principles to create and advocate design. Among other projects they are involved in the publication of Libre Graphics Magazine. They are based in Portugal.
Carrie Anne Philbin - women in open source award finalist, PSF board member and leads education initiatives for the Raspberry Pi Foundation, runs STEM outreach classes for women and minorities in the UK. UK based.
Hope these help, ~m
On February 16, 2016 7:28:19 AM EST, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is this the best way to share suggestions, on this thread, because I
have
someone in mind? :-)
Yes.
josh _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
On 02/17/2016 02:39 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in Fedora. He runs workshops worldwide to enable people to design their own fonts using FLOSS (crafting type - i took it and it was amazing) and he is also a strong advocate for open font licensing and is in charge of Googles web fonts project - he is based in the UK.
Dave was a keynote speaker at Flock 1. As awesome as he was, I would rather not repeat.
~tom
== Red Hat
Ah right, I didn't remember whether it was Flock or FUDcon.
~m
On February 17, 2016 2:59:55 PM EST, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/17/2016 02:39 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in Fedora.
He
runs workshops worldwide to enable people to design their own fonts using FLOSS (crafting type - i took it and it was amazing) and he is also a strong advocate for open font licensing and is in charge of Googles web fonts project - he is based in the UK.
Dave was a keynote speaker at Flock 1. As awesome as he was, I would rather not repeat.
~tom
== Red Hat _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Okay, some ideas for keynoters:
Femke Snelting - from the Libre Graphics community. She could talk about her work with the Libre Graphics Research Unit or a number of other projects she's been involved with at the intersection of design and floss. I think she is based in Belgium. I think she would have a very fresh perspective to give to Fedora on FLOSS.
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in Fedora. He runs workshops worldwide to enable people to design their own fonts using FLOSS (crafting type - i took it and it was amazing) and he is also a strong advocate for open font licensing and is in charge of Googles web fonts project - he is based in the UK.
Ana Isabel Carvalho and Ricardo Lafuente - founders of Manufactura Independente, a design studio / consultancy that uses open source tools and principles to create and advocate design. Among other projects they are involved in the publication of Libre Graphics Magazine. They are based in Portugal.
Carrie Anne Philbin - women in open source award finalist, PSF board member and leads education initiatives for the Raspberry Pi Foundation, runs STEM outreach classes for women and minorities in the UK. UK based.
We /may/ have an opportunity to get a high-profile promotional piece published soon (early next week) and we think calling for keynotes may help with getting that article published. If we already have asked any keynotes or confirmed any keynotes, who are they?
The one above, Carrie Anne Philbin, seems like *rillly* good option.
Thoughts? --RemyD.
Hope these help, ~m
On February 16, 2016 7:28:19 AM EST, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is this the best way to share suggestions, on this thread, because I have someone in mind? :-)
Yes.
josh
flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Remy DeCausemaker decause@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Okay, some ideas for keynoters:
Femke Snelting - from the Libre Graphics community. She could talk about her work with the Libre Graphics Research Unit or a number of other projects she's been involved with at the intersection of design and floss. I think she is based in Belgium. I think she would have a very fresh perspective to give to Fedora on FLOSS.
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in Fedora. He runs workshops worldwide to enable people to design their own fonts using FLOSS (crafting type - i took it and it was amazing) and he is also a strong advocate for open font licensing and is in charge of Googles web fonts project - he is based in the UK.
Ana Isabel Carvalho and Ricardo Lafuente - founders of Manufactura Independente, a design studio / consultancy that uses open source tools and principles to create and advocate design. Among other projects they are involved in the publication of Libre Graphics Magazine. They are based in Portugal.
Carrie Anne Philbin - women in open source award finalist, PSF board member and leads education initiatives for the Raspberry Pi Foundation, runs STEM outreach classes for women and minorities in the UK. UK based.
We /may/ have an opportunity to get a high-profile promotional piece published soon (early next week) and we think calling for keynotes may help with getting that article published. If we already have asked any keynotes or confirmed any keynotes, who are they?
I'm not aware of any being asked, and we certainly do not have any confirmed.
josh
On Feb 17, 2016 2:39 PM, "Máirín Duffy" duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in Fedora. He
runs workshops worldwide to enable people to design their own fonts using FLOSS (crafting type - i took it and it was amazing) and he is also a strong advocate for open font licensing and is in charge of Googles web fonts project - he is based in the UK.
This one's such a good idea, we had him keynote the first Flock. :-)
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 8:26:04 PM EDT, Ruth Suehle wrote:
On Feb 17, 2016 2:39 PM, "Máirín Duffy" duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Dave Crossland - he designed Cantarell, the default font in
This one's such a good idea, we had him keynote the first Flock. :-)
My first maternity leave, IIRC! Ooops!
~m
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 11:33 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
It sounds reasonable, but perhaps not feasible. Particularly finding a keynote speaker that matches to the tone and content of the conference.
Spot would be in the best position to describe the difficulties of finding keynote speakers, particularly in Europe. I watched it from a 50ft view and it was not easy at all. Whoever takes on that task needs to be aware they should start on it ASAP.
I think we should at least make the attempt to have two keynotes, one for the FPL and one for someone who is doing interesting work in FLOSS
FWIW, I was assuming the FPL talk was a given. My comments were for keynotes outside the FPL talk.
josh
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:27:02AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I have to think about this more. The keynotes from last year were fantastic, but we're going to be hard pressed to find people that are relevant and willing to come to Europe and give a talk.
So, I think *no* keynotes would be bad. I would hope we can find at least one good keynote that would help drive attendance and set tone for the conference. Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
I agree, *a* keynote sounds reasonable. Frankly, I think the community would benefit from a keynote that outlines broad, Council level goals *and* suggested actions in Fedora to flow out of them. Not just aspirations, but specific challenges to teams to make changes that support those goals.
And yes, I do also wear rose-colored glasses sometimes. :-)
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops).
This is about a third of the attendance, right? I guess there are two factors in that: first, it's a contributor conference, and so we have a high percentage of people with an interest in presenting; and second, the funding issue (where companies, including Red Hat outside of the Fedora community budget, are much more likely to fund travel for speakers).
3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks)
Wasn't it 6? I mean, not even counting the Awesome Track?
24 workshops across two days (four tracks) In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout. Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day?
I still think fewer tracks is better, but I'm not sure how to get the right balance. I'm pretty sure six is too many. I've already suggested doing lightning talks as a plenary session (that is, in the big room with no competing tracks), and that's in the CFP, and maybe emphasizing that even more as we promote this could help. Slice by time rather than by location, basically. (Maybe even doing at and leaving the number of tracks relatively high at other times.) Then presenters could choose between longer time with a narrower audience or shorter time with a wider one.
Hmmm, in fact, for the narrower audience, perhaps a workshop is more appropriate than a talk -- or a workshop linked with an opening presentation.
Also, at DevConf.cz just now, we had a Q&A session that was basically "AMA for anyone in attendance in Fedora leadership in some way". For Flock, that might be a bit too open -- but maybe not.
Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
I think that's been good, and I think two is a decent number. I don't know who has the baton for this, either.
Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
Yeah :)
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:08:53AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
Last year, we had: 67 speakers (for talks and workshops).
This is about a third of the attendance, right? I guess there are two factors in that: first, it's a contributor conference, and so we have a high percentage of people with an interest in presenting; and second, the funding issue (where companies, including Red Hat outside of the Fedora community budget, are much more likely to fund travel for speakers).
3 keynotes (2 + FPL) 34 talks across two days (five simultaneous tracks)
Wasn't it 6? I mean, not even counting the Awesome Track?
24 workshops across two days (four tracks) In 2016, we have the same amount of days (4), but I wanted to open it for discussion for changes to the scheduling and layout. Do we want less tracks? Less talks? Less workshops per day?
I still think fewer tracks is better, but I'm not sure how to get the right balance. I'm pretty sure six is too many. I've already suggested doing lightning talks as a plenary session (that is, in the big room with no competing tracks), and that's in the CFP, and maybe emphasizing that even more as we promote this could help. Slice by time rather than by location, basically. (Maybe even doing at and leaving the number of tracks relatively high at other times.) Then presenters could choose between longer time with a narrower audience or shorter time with a wider one.
Hmmm, in fact, for the narrower audience, perhaps a workshop is more appropriate than a talk -- or a workshop linked with an opening presentation.
Also, at DevConf.cz just now, we had a Q&A session that was basically "AMA for anyone in attendance in Fedora leadership in some way". For Flock, that might be a bit too open -- but maybe not.
Do we still want the keynotes in the mornings? Traditionally, we've focused on bringing in external keynote speakers, but we had a lot of difficulty doing this the last time we were in Europe. (It is also unclear who is responsible for handling keynotes this year, as it was my job in previous years.)
I think that's been good, and I think two is a decent number. I don't know who has the baton for this, either.
Also, it seems unclear to me when the CFP closes (it is open now).
Yeah :)
Does anyone object to publicizing March 14 as a starter deadline for CFP?
I would like to get more announcements out to internal dev groups. A line in the sand will help, I think.
On 02/15/2016 11:28 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does anyone object to publicizing March 14 as a starter deadline for CFP?
"Starter deadline"?
That gives us ~1 month. I'm OK with that if we really hit the announcements hard.
Best,
jzb
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 11:28 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does anyone object to publicizing March 14 as a starter deadline for CFP?
"Starter deadline"?
That gives us ~1 month. I'm OK with that if we really hit the announcements hard.
For an event that happens in August, I don't see why we'd close CFP that early. It doesn't take 4 months to bring together a schedule from submitted talks.
Even if we're optimizing for marketing lead time (e.g. "Look at the awesome schedule!") to bring in other people, we'd really only need it set about 2 months before the event. That puts my back of the napkin deadline at the end of May.
josh
On 02/15/2016 01:45 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Even if we're optimizing for marketing lead time (e.g. "Look at the awesome schedule!") to bring in other people, we'd really only need it set about 2 months before the event. That puts my back of the napkin deadline at the end of May.
Marketing lead time is good, but travel lead time is king. A lot of folks squawk if they don't know their travel schedule earlier.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 01:45 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Even if we're optimizing for marketing lead time (e.g. "Look at the awesome schedule!") to bring in other people, we'd really only need it set about 2 months before the event. That puts my back of the napkin deadline at the end of May.
Marketing lead time is good, but travel lead time is king. A lot of folks squawk if they don't know their travel schedule earlier.
Earlier than 2 months out? I thought ticket prices were optimal in that range. Either way, Mar 14 seems way too soon for me. We can go end of April and it's still 3 months out.
josh
On 02/15/2016 01:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Earlier than 2 months out? I thought ticket prices were optimal in that range. Either way, Mar 14 seems way too soon for me. We can go end of April and it's still 3 months out.
There's time off considerations, budgeting, visas... I'm not sure how much lead time we've had in the past, I just know this is a constant refrain I hear when talking to people about events. "Oh, I wish I'd known sooner..."
I talked to Diane Mueller about Flock a bit ago and she was assuming we'd already done the CFP and had everything locked.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 01:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Earlier than 2 months out? I thought ticket prices were optimal in that range. Either way, Mar 14 seems way too soon for me. We can go end of April and it's still 3 months out.
There's time off considerations, budgeting, visas... I'm not sure how much lead time we've had in the past, I just know this is a constant refrain I hear when talking to people about events. "Oh, I wish I'd known sooner..."
Known sooner about the event? That's fine. They can know all they want. It's a matter of spreading the word as far as possible. That doesn't mean we need to close talk submission.
As for budget, we normally operate on a quarterly basis. Most departments are going to chalk Flock up as a Q2 expense, not a Q1 expense. Booking travel for speakers isn't going to begin until Q2 most likely either. Which means we'd have closed CFP early for no benefit. If we close it at the end of April, we can get the schedule set before Q1 wraps up easily. That's another 6 weeks of letting people plan and figure out what they want to talk about. Hopefully it cuts down on the staleness factor Remy mentioned as well.
We only have 30 talks submitted thus far. I'm not at all convinced we're going to get sufficient number of talks submitted in a month to actually have a conference. Even if we go with the "last minute submission" principle, I really think we'd wind up short.
I talked to Diane Mueller about Flock a bit ago and she was assuming we'd already done the CFP and had everything locked.
That sounds like something that needs to be corrected ASAP. Perhaps you or Matt could send something internally.
josh
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:45:05PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 01:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Earlier than 2 months out? I thought ticket prices were optimal in that range. Either way, Mar 14 seems way too soon for me. We can go end of April and it's still 3 months out.
There's time off considerations, budgeting, visas... I'm not sure how much lead time we've had in the past, I just know this is a constant refrain I hear when talking to people about events. "Oh, I wish I'd known sooner..."
Known sooner about the event? That's fine. They can know all they want. It's a matter of spreading the word as far as possible. That doesn't mean we need to close talk submission.
As for budget, we normally operate on a quarterly basis. Most departments are going to chalk Flock up as a Q2 expense, not a Q1 expense. Booking travel for speakers isn't going to begin until Q2 most likely either. Which means we'd have closed CFP early for no benefit. If we close it at the end of April, we can get the schedule set before Q1 wraps up easily. That's another 6 weeks of letting people plan and figure out what they want to talk about. Hopefully it cuts down on the staleness factor Remy mentioned as well.
We only have 30 talks submitted thus far. I'm not at all convinced we're going to get sufficient number of talks submitted in a month to actually have a conference. Even if we go with the "last minute submission" principle, I really think we'd wind up short.
How about we go with April 8th for now. Again, nothing stops us from extending the deadline. It's good to not have it so far in the future that (1) we can't identify trends in talk topics; and (2) it affects travel and subsidy decision making. Does that sound reasonable?
I talked to Diane Mueller about Flock a bit ago and she was assuming we'd already done the CFP and had everything locked.
That sounds like something that needs to be corrected ASAP. Perhaps you or Matt could send something internally.
I had planned to send a list of info highlights to Red Hat's engineering teams to make sure they were aware. I was hoping to set this deadline in order to do that. ;-)
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:45:05PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 01:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Earlier than 2 months out? I thought ticket prices were optimal in that range. Either way, Mar 14 seems way too soon for me. We can go end of April and it's still 3 months out.
There's time off considerations, budgeting, visas... I'm not sure how much lead time we've had in the past, I just know this is a constant refrain I hear when talking to people about events. "Oh, I wish I'd known sooner..."
Known sooner about the event? That's fine. They can know all they want. It's a matter of spreading the word as far as possible. That doesn't mean we need to close talk submission.
As for budget, we normally operate on a quarterly basis. Most departments are going to chalk Flock up as a Q2 expense, not a Q1 expense. Booking travel for speakers isn't going to begin until Q2 most likely either. Which means we'd have closed CFP early for no benefit. If we close it at the end of April, we can get the schedule set before Q1 wraps up easily. That's another 6 weeks of letting people plan and figure out what they want to talk about. Hopefully it cuts down on the staleness factor Remy mentioned as well.
We only have 30 talks submitted thus far. I'm not at all convinced we're going to get sufficient number of talks submitted in a month to actually have a conference. Even if we go with the "last minute submission" principle, I really think we'd wind up short.
How about we go with April 8th for now. Again, nothing stops us from extending the deadline. It's good to not have it so far in the future that (1) we can't identify trends in talk topics; and (2) it affects travel and subsidy decision making. Does that sound reasonable?
It sounds like a compromise between my dates and the original suggestion. I'm all about compromise, so let's go with that. When we announce it, we need to include the other note we discussed.
I talked to Diane Mueller about Flock a bit ago and she was assuming we'd already done the CFP and had everything locked.
That sounds like something that needs to be corrected ASAP. Perhaps you or Matt could send something internally.
I had planned to send a list of info highlights to Red Hat's engineering teams to make sure they were aware. I was hoping to set this deadline in order to do that. ;-)
Fantastic.
josh
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:45:05PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 01:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Earlier than 2 months out? I thought ticket prices were optimal in that range. Either way, Mar 14 seems way too soon for me. We can go end of April and it's still 3 months out.
There's time off considerations, budgeting, visas... I'm not sure how much lead time we've had in the past, I just know this is a constant refrain I hear when talking to people about events. "Oh, I wish I'd known sooner..."
Known sooner about the event? That's fine. They can know all they want. It's a matter of spreading the word as far as possible. That doesn't mean we need to close talk submission.
As for budget, we normally operate on a quarterly basis. Most departments are going to chalk Flock up as a Q2 expense, not a Q1 expense. Booking travel for speakers isn't going to begin until Q2 most likely either. Which means we'd have closed CFP early for no benefit. If we close it at the end of April, we can get the schedule set before Q1 wraps up easily. That's another 6 weeks of letting people plan and figure out what they want to talk about. Hopefully it cuts down on the staleness factor Remy mentioned as well.
We only have 30 talks submitted thus far. I'm not at all convinced we're going to get sufficient number of talks submitted in a month to actually have a conference. Even if we go with the "last minute submission" principle, I really think we'd wind up short.
How about we go with April 8th for now. Again, nothing stops us from extending the deadline. It's good to not have it so far in the future that (1) we can't identify trends in talk topics; and (2) it affects travel and subsidy decision making. Does that sound reasonable?
It sounds like a compromise between my dates and the original suggestion. I'm all about compromise, so let's go with that. When we announce it, we need to include the other note we discussed.
+1 on April 8th deadline. --RemyD.
I talked to Diane Mueller about Flock a bit ago and she was assuming we'd already done the CFP and had everything locked.
That sounds like something that needs to be corrected ASAP. Perhaps you or Matt could send something internally.
I had planned to send a list of info highlights to Red Hat's engineering teams to make sure they were aware. I was hoping to set this deadline in order to do that. ;-)
Fantastic.
josh _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
On 02/16/2016 11:47 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
How about we go with April 8th for now. Again, nothing stops us from extending the deadline. It's good to not have it so far in the future that (1) we can't identify trends in talk topics; and (2) it affects travel and subsidy decision making. Does that sound reasonable?
+1 works for me.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/15/2016 11:28 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does anyone object to publicizing March 14 as a starter deadline for CFP?
"Starter deadline"?
That gives us ~1 month. I'm OK with that if we really hit the announcements hard.
For an event that happens in August, I don't see why we'd close CFP that early. It doesn't take 4 months to bring together a schedule from submitted talks.
Even if we're optimizing for marketing lead time (e.g. "Look at the awesome schedule!") to bring in other people, we'd really only need it set about 2 months before the event. That puts my back of the napkin deadline at the end of May.
I'm +1 with jwb here.
I think closing the CFP early leads to 'stale' titles. Last year I could tell that some of the titles for Flock talks were dated, and didn't reflect the content that was actually being presented. Presenters are usually good about updating the content, even if the title is not reflecting the latest state of the topic.
I'm still ok with closing the CFP early if we need to, or if organizers think it makes sense. If we are just using the early deadline as a way to get more people to submit earlier, then I suggest that we suggest that earlier submissions get 'extra credit/deference' of some kind?
Hope This Helps, --RemyD.
josh _______________________________________________ flock-planning mailing list flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/flock-planning@lists.fedoraprojec...
flock-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org