[Inpycon] CFP draft for review

[Anand Chitipothu]

2010/6/11 Noufal Ibrahim <noufal at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Anand Chitipothu <anandology at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> >> 2. I had added "Description" in the CFP for detailed outline for
>> >> reviewers
>> >> plus notes. It is not possible to review a proposal with just a summary
>> >> which we say should not be more than 100 words. This is required
>> >> in the interface.
>> >
>> > It is not clear to me. Do you want a description/notes field only for
>> > reviewers? The interface for reviewers is not built yet and I'll
>> > include that field when I build that.
>> [..]
>
> Anand B.'s point is that there should be a "summary" field and a separate
> "description" field.
>
> The summary field is a very short (less than 100 words) summary of the
> presentation which will be displayed on the site when someone clicks on the
> talk etc. It's how the public will know what the talk is about.
>
> The Description field will be long and detailed describing exactly what the
> talker is intending to talk about. This is what the reviewers will look at
> to see if this talk can be selected or not. People will not be uploading the
> entire slide deck etc. when they register their talk but they will *have* to
> fill this and this is what will be used to review the talk and decide
> whether we're going to have it or not.
>
> Right?
>
> I think this makes sense

OK.

Summary. (summary of your talk in less than 100 words).

Description (describe your talk in detail for reviewers)

I'm not quite happy with the the description of the "description"
field. Any suggestions?

Anand