Hello everyone, Now that we have a venue, would it be wise to open up the CFPs? We need time and sufficient proposals if we're to improve the quality this time and so, the earlier the better. I feel that we should open up and publicise the CFP right away. Registration can come a little later (Say late July or so). What do you feel? Thanks. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
2010/6/4 Noufal Ibrahim <noufal@gmail.com>:
Hello everyone, Now that we have a venue, would it be wise to open up the CFPs?
We need time and sufficient proposals if we're to improve the quality this time and so, the earlier the better.
I feel that we should open up and publicise the CFP right away.
Registration can come a little later (Say late July or so).
What do you feel?
I think we should first form a team of reviewers. Anand
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Anand Chitipothu <anandology@gmail.com> wrote: [..]
I think we should first form a team of reviewers.
Agreed. The more the merrier. I had mailed a couple of the core devs about this and they can offer *some* time. We need a good team here as well. I can pitch in. The more people there are, the easier it will be for all of us. Who else is willing? -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Noufal Ibrahim <noufal@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Anand Chitipothu <anandology@gmail.com> wrote: [..]
I think we should first form a team of reviewers.
Agreed. The more the merrier. I had mailed a couple of the core devs about this and they can offer *some* time. We need a good team here as well. I can pitch in. The more people there are, the easier it will be for all of us.
Who else is willing?
+1. I had volunteered for this right from the start and this is something I am looking forward to. We need to draft a CFP document and publish it in the mailing list as well as email it out to a list of interested presenters. We could use the email addresses collected from last year for this. I will create a very basic CFP draft and send it to you the week-end. We can thrash it out in the mailing list and develop it over the next week. It would be useful to have an idea of the specific tracks (if any) so that the CFP is not very vague.
-- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in _______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
-- --Anand
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com> wrote:
We need to draft a CFP document and publish it in the mailing list as well
Correction: I meant publish it in the "website", not "mailing list"!
You should go ahead and make an account on the site right away and use it while drafting your proposal. We'd have revision control and ability to edit directly then. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com> wrote: [..]
+1. I had volunteered for this right from the start and this is something I am looking forward to.
Excellent. :)
We need to draft a CFP document and publish it in the mailing list as well as email it out to a list of interested presenters. We could use the email addresses collected from last year for this.
Hmmm. I personally wouldn't mind receiving such an email but I'm sure there are lots of privacy nazis out there who'll get their knickers in a twist if they receive such an email. However, the general idea of publicising the CFP is a good one and it should be a post on the main PyCon website as well as the conferences@python.org mailing list.
I will create a very basic CFP draft and send it to you the week-end. We can thrash it out in the mailing list and develop it over the next week. It would be useful to have an idea of the specific tracks (if any) so that the CFP is not very vague.
Hmmm. * We should have a dedicated "beginners" track that the hardcore snakes can avoid. This is similar to the tutorial track we had last year although not a marathon thing. * If Prabhu and Asokan are okay with our proposal, we'll have an engineering/scientific track * Then the "actual" tracks where we're having the real meat of the conference. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Friday 04 June 2010 18:47:42 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
We need to draft a CFP document and publish it in the mailing list as well as email it out to a list of interested presenters. We could use the email addresses collected from last year for this.
Hmmm. I personally wouldn't mind receiving such an email but I'm sure there are lots of privacy nazis out there who'll get their knickers in a twist if they receive such an email.
the privacy nazi's have opted for privacy - no harm in sending a mail to the rest of them who have agreed to receive a mail even from the sponsors. You should be having a copy of the list of the non-privacy guys -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: [..]
the privacy nazi's have opted for privacy - no harm in sending a mail to the rest of them who have agreed to receive a mail even from the sponsors. You should be having a copy of the list of the non-privacy guys
Yup. I think I do. Anyway, I think we'll get this kickstarted. Anand is working on the CFP which should be ready over the weekend. Anyone else have some free time a couple of months later to review some proposals? This is something that requires a lot of people so every little bit helps. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Friday 04 June 2010 18:58:53 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
Anyone else have some free time a couple of months later to review some proposals? This is something that requires a lot of people so every little bit helps.
I assume you will have a mechanism in place for reviewers to make their comments and vote? -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2010 18:58:53 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
Anyone else have some free time a couple of months later to review some proposals? This is something that requires a lot of people so every little bit helps.
I assume you will have a mechanism in place for reviewers to make their comments and vote?
I haven't really thought about it. I'm not even sure how to do the review. Is it going to be all the reviewers looking at all the proposals or some kind of split up etc. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Friday 04 June 2010 19:12:24 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
I assume you will have a mechanism in place for reviewers to make their comments and vote?
I haven't really thought about it.
I'm not even sure how to do the review. Is it going to be all the reviewers looking at all the proposals or some kind of split up etc.
the way we did it last year was that reviewers could comment on the proposal and/or rate it +1, 0, -1. The authors had access to modify it. The set of reviewers was controlled by decorators - one specifying who can view the proposal, one for comments and one for rating. We had set it as - world viewable, registered users could comment and rate, one vote per head and only authors could modify. Of course each of these rights could be restricted to any subset of registered users. Once we decide which rights are given to whom, implementation would be trivial. -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: [..]
the way we did it last year was that reviewers could comment on the proposal and/or rate it +1, 0, -1. The authors had access to modify it. The set of reviewers was controlled by decorators - one specifying who can view the proposal, one for comments and one for rating. We had set it as - world viewable, registered users could comment and rate, one vote per head and only authors could modify. Of course each of these rights could be restricted to any subset of registered users.
True but the problem was that we were so close to the deadline that we couldn't get any reviewers and Baiju and I had to make do with a quick scan of the proposals. We didn't use any of the features which the software provided. I don't think it's that big a problem. A wiki or a shared google doc should be enough. Users voting is pretty pointless. Feedback from the audience *after* a talk has been presented in a lot more valuable. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Saturday 05 June 2010 10:33:56 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
and/or rate it +1, 0, -1. The authors had access to modify it. The set of reviewers was controlled by decorators - one specifying who can view the proposal, one for comments and one for rating. We had set it as - world viewable, registered users could comment and rate, one vote per head and only authors could modify. Of course each of these rights could be restricted to any subset of registered users.
True but the problem was that we were so close to the deadline that we couldn't get any reviewers and Baiju and I had to make do with a quick scan of the proposals. We didn't use any of the features which the software provided.
I don't think it's that big a problem. A wiki or a shared google doc should be enough. Users voting is pretty pointless. Feedback from the audience after a talk has been presented in a lot more valuable.
you have not got the point I am making. The point is that we have to decide the following: 1. are proposals public or not 2. who reviews them 3. who makes the final decision 4. is there to be interaction with the author before a final decision is taken once this is decided an appropriate mechanism can be put in place. -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: [..]
you have not got the point I am making. The point is that we have to decide the following:
1. are proposals public or not Nope. They get mailed/uploaded, a committee reviews them and it's over. The junta doesn't have a say in picking/commenting on proposals.
2. who reviews them The committee which we're trying to set up. Anand Pillai is one of the members and more are welcome.
3. who makes the final decision We'll appoint someone to *head* it. Anand has already started work on the CFP so if he's willing to own this up, it'd be perfect.
4. is there to be interaction with the author before a final decision is taken Case by case basis although I see no reason why not to do this.
-- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Saturday 05 June 2010 11:35:34 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
1. are proposals public or not
Nope. They get mailed/uploaded, a committee reviews them and it's over. The junta doesn't have a say in picking/commenting on proposals.
any special reason for this? IMO for a community event public exposure is good. However if this decision holds, there is no need to discuss the process at all - proposals get mailed to the head of the committee. He circulates it among the members, decides on the selected talks and it gets put up on the site. -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2010 11:35:34 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
1. are proposals public or not
Nope. They get mailed/uploaded, a committee reviews them and it's over. The junta doesn't have a say in picking/commenting on proposals.
any special reason for this? IMO for a community event public exposure is good. However if this decision holds, there is no need to discuss the process at all - proposals get mailed to the head of the committee. He circulates it among the members, decides on the selected talks and it gets put up on the site.
That's what I thought and it's what seems most natural to me. Quite frankly, your line of thought didn't even occur to me. I'm not sure how much benefit there will be in soliciting comments from the general audience and trying to make it more 'democratic'. However, if there's sufficient interest in doing it this way, we can go ahead. I'm not religious about it either way. I feel that your approach requires more work and coordination. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Saturday 05 June 2010 11:57:40 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
any special reason for this? IMO for a community event public exposure is good. However if this decision holds, there is no need to discuss the process at all - proposals get mailed to the head of the committee. He circulates it among the members, decides on the selected talks and it gets put up on the site.
That's what I thought and it's what seems most natural to me. Quite frankly, your line of thought didn't even occur to me. I'm not sure how much benefit there will be in soliciting comments from the general audience and trying to make it more 'democratic'.
not really a question of being democratic. It is rather that the conference is in its initial stages - not like a well established conference like pycon where there are thousands of aspiring speakers. Here speakers would like to see who else has proposed talks and on what - the 'junta' would also like to see what kind of interest is being generated and what kind of level of speaker participation is going to be at. A lot of people who have something to say are diffident about it - but when they see X is proposing some sort of talk and then they say: If that guy can talk - so can I. Permitting the 'junta' to comment or rate on site may not be necessary, they can as well comment and rate on the mailing list. Of course the final decision should be by the committee, taking into account discussions. Further the organisers can also say things like - xyz subject is not covered, some one please come forward. -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: [..]
not really a question of being democratic. It is rather that the conference is in its initial stages - not like a well established conference like pycon where there are thousands of aspiring speakers. Here speakers would like to see who else has proposed talks and on what - the 'junta' would also like to see what kind of interest is being generated and what kind of level of speaker participation is going to be at. A lot of people who have something to say are diffident about it - but when they see X is proposing some sort of talk and then they say: If that guy can talk - so can I.
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks. Once Anand comes out with the CFP, we'll see how we can structure this so that the proposals are publicised properly. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Noufal Ibrahim <noufal@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2010 11:35:34 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
1. are proposals public or not
Nope. They get mailed/uploaded, a committee reviews them and it's over. The junta doesn't have a say in picking/commenting on proposals.
any special reason for this? IMO for a community event public exposure is good. However if this decision holds, there is no need to discuss the
at all - proposals get mailed to the head of the committee. He circulates it among the members, decides on the selected talks and it gets put up on
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: process the
site.
That's what I thought and it's what seems most natural to me. Quite frankly, your line of thought didn't even occur to me. I'm not sure how much benefit there will be in soliciting comments from the general audience and trying to make it more 'democratic'.
I like Kenneth's thought process. It does not seem to a question of 'democratic' . It is just that public exposure is good for a variety of reasons. More so for a fledgling event . Making the transition is faster rather than later when having a big event Regards Hari
However, if there's sufficient interest in doing it this way, we can go ahead. I'm not religious about it either way. I feel that your approach requires more work and coordination.
-- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in _______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2010 18:58:53 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
Anyone else have some free time a couple of months later to review some proposals? This is something that requires a lot of people so every little bit helps.
I assume you will have a mechanism in place for reviewers to make their comments and vote?
Shouldn't google docs be enough for this ? We can create one account for this which the reviewers can use. It can be shared with anyone else who is interested. I guess it allows annotations & comments.
-- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC _______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
-- --Anand
2010/6/4 Anand Balachandran Pillai <abpillai@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2010 18:58:53 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
Anyone else have some free time a couple of months later to review some proposals? This is something that requires a lot of people so every little bit helps.
I assume you will have a mechanism in place for reviewers to make their comments and vote?
Shouldn't google docs be enough for this ? We can create one account for this which the reviewers can use. It can be shared with anyone else who is interested. I guess it allows annotations & comments.
we can use the conference website. It is a wiki. I can make part of the website admin read-only if required. Anand
+1 with regard'svijay kumar bang --- On Fri, 4/6/10, Noufal Ibrahim <noufal@gmail.com> wrote: From: Noufal Ibrahim <noufal@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Inpycon] CFPs To: "Mailing list for the PyCon India conference" <inpycon@python.org> Date: Friday, 4 June, 2010, 6:58 PM On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: [..]
the privacy nazi's have opted for privacy - no harm in sending a mail to the rest of them who have agreed to receive a mail even from the sponsors. You should be having a copy of the list of the non-privacy guys
Yup. I think I do. Anyway, I think we'll get this kickstarted. Anand is working on the CFP which should be ready over the weekend. Anyone else have some free time a couple of months later to review some proposals? This is something that requires a lot of people so every little bit helps. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in _______________________________________________ Inpycon mailing list Inpycon@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/inpycon
participants (6)
-
Anand Balachandran Pillai -
Anand Chitipothu -
Harihara Vinayakaram -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Noufal Ibrahim -
vijay