We have currently 23 talks on the site (excluding the test ones). I personally feel this is not quantum enough for a good selection. Since we have only 1 week to go as of now, I suggest to move this for another week and maximize the marketing efforts. Another concern for me is that this time we are proposing for 3 days but so far I don't think we have got any proposal for tutorial tracks at all. As of now, with no tutorial track proposals, it doesn't look like there is enough content for 3 days. Thoughts ? -- --Anand
Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com> writes:
We have currently 23 talks on the site (excluding the test ones). I personally feel this is not quantum enough for a good selection.
I agree.
Since we have only 1 week to go as of now, I suggest to move this for another week and maximize the marketing efforts.
Another week or even 10 days.
Another concern for me is that this time we are proposing for 3 days but so far I don't think we have got any proposal for tutorial tracks at all.
2 days. One is just for tutorials. I don't think this was sufficiently advertised. The original plan was to have paid tutorials but the consensus was to get volunteer ones and to find those people. I don't know how many people have volunteered and committed. Also, we are reducing the number of tracks. There was a previous thread where I suggested reducing the number of tracks and talks to pick out only the *good* ones rather than having lots of amateur ones.
As of now, with no tutorial track proposals, it doesn't look like there is enough content for 3 days.
Thoughts ?
I don't know what the plans are for the tutorials. Like I said, there were some decisions made but I don't know how far things have gone on that front. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in Why don't you pair `em up in threes? -Yogi Berra
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Noufal Ibrahim <noufal@gmail.com> wrote:
Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com> writes:
We have currently 23 talks on the site (excluding the test ones). I personally feel this is not quantum enough for a good selection.
I agree.
Since we have only 1 week to go as of now, I suggest to move this for another week and maximize the marketing efforts.
Another week or even 10 days.
+1
Another concern for me is that this time we are proposing for 3 days but so far I don't think we have got any proposal for tutorial tracks at all.
2 days. One is just for tutorials. I don't think this was sufficiently advertised.
The original plan was to have paid tutorials but the consensus was to get volunteer ones and to find those people. I don't know how many people have volunteered and committed.
Also, we are reducing the number of tracks. There was a previous thread where I suggested reducing the number of tracks and talks to pick out only the *good* ones rather than having lots of amateur ones.
As of now, with no tutorial track proposals, it doesn't look like there is enough content for 3 days.
Thoughts ?
I don't know what the plans are for the tutorials. Like I said, there were some decisions made but I don't know how far things have gone on that front.
I now have quite a few volunteers (6 if I am not wrong willing to work on the tutorial tracks). I believe (especially if that number could be raised by another two) we could structure a reasonable tutorial track. It remains to formally plan a tutorial sequence (at least thats what I had in mind - which may may not be consistent with other assumptions). We could also structure a sequence of tutorials that would make sense and then publish that and seek volunteers for specific sessions. I was considering taking a stab at least at such a draft structure this weekend - suggestions are welcome.
-- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
Why don't you pair `em up in threes? -Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: @dnene
Dhananjay Nene <dhananjay.nene@gmail.com> writes: [...]
I now have quite a few volunteers (6 if I am not wrong willing to work on the tutorial tracks). I believe (especially if that number could be raised by another two) we could structure a reasonable tutorial track. It remains to formally plan a tutorial sequence (at least thats what I had in mind - which may may not be consistent with other assumptions).
We could also structure a sequence of tutorials that would make sense and then publish that and seek volunteers for specific sessions. I was considering taking a stab at least at such a draft structure this weekend - suggestions are welcome.
[...] It might be problematic to find volunteers if the sequence is pre decided. The way the other PyCons I've seen do it is to solicit talks the usual way but to treat tutorials as a category (longer duration, separate day) and then to schedule the good ones out of what is received. Either way is fine but we're horribly late with everything and unless a decision is taken quickly and acted upon, we'll end up with nothing. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in Gentlemen, I want you to know that I am not always right, but I am never wrong. -Samuel Goldwyn
2011/6/24 Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com>:
We have currently 23 talks on the site (excluding the test ones). I personally feel this is not quantum enough for a good selection.
Since we have only 1 week to go as of now, I suggest to move this for another week and maximize the marketing efforts.
Another concern for me is that this time we are proposing for 3 days but so far I don't think we have got any proposal for tutorial tracks at all.
As of now, with no tutorial track proposals, it doesn't look like there is enough content for 3 days.
Thoughts ?
There are three tutorials proposed. http://in.pycon.org/2011/talks?talk_type=tutorial Anand
Anand Chitipothu <anandology@gmail.com> writes:
2011/6/24 Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com>:
We have currently 23 talks on the site (excluding the test ones). I personally feel this is not quantum enough for a good selection.
Since we have only 1 week to go as of now, I suggest to move this for another week and maximize the marketing efforts.
Another concern for me is that this time we are proposing for 3 days but so far I don't think we have got any proposal for tutorial tracks at all.
As of now, with no tutorial track proposals, it doesn't look like there is enough content for 3 days.
Thoughts ?
There are three tutorials proposed.
[...] It might help if we added a "type" field to the talks table or maybe change the row background colours to reflect the type of talk. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in As famous as the unknown soldier.
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:59 +0530, Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
There are three tutorials proposed.
[...]
It might help if we added a "type" field to the talks table or maybe change the row background colours to reflect the type of talk.
we also need 'evangelism' as a topic, and 'of general interest to all levels' in the level field. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves http://lawgon.livejournal.com/
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:59 +0530, Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
There are three tutorials proposed.
[...]
It might help if we added a "type" field to the talks table or maybe change the row background colours to reflect the type of talk.
+1
we also need 'evangelism' as a topic, and 'of general interest to all levels' in the level field.
+1 Can we set July 10 as the "new" deadline and make the changes to the CFP page and blog about it ? I will also add a post on the Pycon blog whose link an be retweeted via PSF.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves http://lawgon.livejournal.com/
_______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
-- --Anand
It might help if we added a "type" field to the talks table or maybe change the row background colours to reflect the type of talk.
+1
Done. http://in.pycon.org/2011/talks
we also need 'evangelism' as a topic, and 'of general interest to all levels' in the level field.
+1
How about adding "community" topic instead? -1 for adding new level.
Can we set July 10 as the "new" deadline and make the changes to the CFP page and blog about it ?
Done. Can you please look at the dates and let me know if that looks okay? http://in.pycon.org/2011/cfp Anand
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Anand Chitipothu <anandology@gmail.com>wrote:
It might help if we added a "type" field to the talks table or maybe change the row background colours to reflect the type of talk.
+1
Done.
http://in.pycon.org/2011/talks
we also need 'evangelism' as a topic, and 'of general interest to all levels' in the level field.
+1
How about adding "community" topic instead?
-1 for adding new level.
Can we set July 10 as the "new" deadline and make the changes to the CFP page and blog about it ?
Done. Can you please look at the dates and let me know if that looks okay?
Looks fine - as long as we can do evaluation of proposals and intimation in 15 days since there is only so much of gap from the last day of CFP to day of acceptance (Jul 25). I personally think it should be fine since we dont have a huge cache of talks this year as last year. Any other thoughts ?
Anand _______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
-- --Anand
participants (5)
-
Anand Balachandran Pillai -
Anand Chitipothu -
Dhananjay Nene -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Noufal Ibrahim