21:16:38 #startmeeting openSUSE Conference Program Committee Meeting 21:16:38 Meeting started Thu Apr 21 21:16:38 2011 UTC. The chair is suseROCKs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:16:38 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 21:16:52 vuntz, if you do, I'll file a million bugs and cc them to you! 21:17:16 AlanClark, jospoortvliet yaloki ready? 21:17:19 ok 21:17:21 ready 21:17:23 #chair vuntz 21:17:23 Current chairs: suseROCKs vuntz 21:17:29 we need to discuss the conference theme 21:17:34 #chair jospoortvliet AlanClark yaloki 21:17:34 Current chairs: AlanClark jospoortvliet suseROCKs vuntz yaloki 21:17:37 and a rough idea of the schedule & approach yes? 21:17:55 jospoortvliet, yes. the three topics I suggested in the email yesterday which are: 21:17:57 1. Theme 21:17:59 2. Format 21:18:11 3. Organization of this crazy but stunningly-goodlooking team 21:18:34 ok 21:18:41 any other things we might need to add? anyone? 21:18:47 (i think this is fine for now) 21:18:56 and 1 and 2 are closely related imho 21:19:06 I wonder if theme should be looked at *after* format? 21:19:33 theme is something which both attracts ppl and influences format but you can also make sure a format is done in such a way that it 'compensates' for a limiting (in some area's) theme 21:19:35 fwiw, I'm mostly worried about the fact that we don't know when the conference will be, which makes it hard to schedule things 21:19:50 vuntz: we aim for end of august/beginning of september 21:19:52 (it just means we should do everything asap, I guess) 21:19:59 but imho we need aggreement on format and theme first 21:20:03 how about 21:20:03 vuntz, yup that's why today's meeting :-D 21:20:07 I do a quick proposal... 21:20:10 for a format 21:20:11 . 21:20:16 ? 21:20:29 as for scheduling, as I see in 2011 proposal, it says one of the main considerations is to ensure a facility that can handle 5 tracks. So let's assume we have 5 tracks for sure. 21:20:39 suseROCKs: +1 21:21:08 we ( suseROCKs and yaloki ) had a discussion on the theme and Ive heard from others too that a concern is that the oS community itself needs some attention 21:21:15 before we get into that, jospoortvliet I need one moment to discuss how we record our stuff here? 21:21:19 suseROCKs: oh, I was not talking about schedule as in "how to arrange talks", but as in "when to have the cfp out, what's the deadline to submit talks, etc." 21:21:30 we have meetbot yes, but we also need to track what we're doing in a wiki I guess? Who would want to take care of that? 21:21:37 vuntz: well that we can indeed only figure out once we have a location and date 21:22:07 * mrdocs waves 21:22:28 2 months is an absolute minimum for a CfP 21:22:51 but we don't need to stress that we're in hurry, we all get that I think :) 21:22:51 that means end of may is our absolute latest according to the potential date Jos just mentioned 21:23:06 suseROCKs: yes, that would be my feeling too 21:23:10 and the earlier the better 21:23:16 especially for CfP 21:23:16 well, we need time to send notifications of acceptance 21:23:22 and people need time to book travel 21:23:26 I think if we can get our act together, we can pretty well be ready by early/mid-May 21:23:29 so end of may is too late for august... 21:23:33 anyway 21:23:34 yes 21:23:36 let's stick to the agenda :-) 21:23:45 yes there's nothing we can do about that at this time 21:23:59 it's ASAP on everything anyway ;) 21:24:11 so before we proceed with jos's proposal, can we at least agree who is responsible for recording/tracking here? 21:24:25 * vuntz points his finger at yaloki 21:24:30 yes I called the meeting, but tbh I don't want to be seen as the team lead or anything like that. I'm just one of you guys :-D 21:24:54 #action yaloki publish a summary, decisions, etc... of the meeting 21:25:01 great! 21:25:02 * vuntz can't believe it worked 21:25:06 lol 21:25:14 but I'm no chair, hence meetbot is ignoring what I say, right? 21:25:14 vuntz, and its recorded for posterity! :-D 21:25:21 #chair yaloki 21:25:21 Current chairs: AlanClark jospoortvliet suseROCKs vuntz yaloki 21:25:22 #chair yaloki 21:25:22 Current chairs: AlanClark jospoortvliet suseROCKs vuntz yaloki 21:25:23 I'm ok with being in charge if you need a chair 21:25:26 #action yaloki publish a summary, decisions, etc... of the meeting 21:25:39 oh well, anyway 21:25:52 ok we can move on to jos's proposal. Jos.. begin 21:25:56 we need a #topic first, I guess 21:25:57 I'll summarize and post to the ML + keep track on a wiki page 21:26:03 ok 21:26:08 please use #info and #agreed extensively 21:26:11 http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot 21:26:22 #topic The theme of the conference 21:26:27 so there was a discussion between yaloki, myself and bryen over some concerns that the oSC last year was too focussed on non-openSUSE things for marketing reasons 21:26:45 now I do think the meeting did have the right effects in the marketing area but indeed, our community could use with a bit more attention :D 21:26:46 yes 21:27:00 now I don't want to trow away the child with the badwater (is that english?) 21:27:08 and get our cake & eat it too etc 21:27:15 so I had a chat with alan 21:27:17 "throw out the baby with the bath water" 21:27:22 awesome :D 21:27:24 ok 21:27:25 #info "throw out the baby with the bath water" 21:27:28 :-D 21:27:32 so the idea is - why not separate rooms in tracks with a subject 21:27:35 #undo 21:27:35 Removing item from minutes: 21:27:43 jospoortvliet: sure, what else 21:27:47 our 'collaboration accross borders' worked very well' but we can confine it to 1 room (out of 5) 21:27:53 then 1 room for the SUSE labs conference 21:27:59 the other 2 or 3 rooms for 'internal'. 21:28:03 hmh 21:28:04 oh that's right, I keep forgetting about Labs... 21:28:04 that seems fair to me 21:28:09 and separates things clearly 21:28:12 so we don't have 5, but 4 21:28:15 while still keeping the 'collaboration' in there 21:28:21 yaloki: 2 or 3 I said 21:28:27 4 or 5 rooms would work in that case 21:28:27 jospoortvliet: I mean in total 21:28:30 3 is not enough in any case 21:28:49 are we talking talks or working sessions? 21:28:51 yaloki: 4 or 5 is what we look for right now. 5 has preference, 4 is hard lower limit 21:28:56 well, on the topic of collaboration, we should rather target things that are specifically useful for our project too 21:29:00 vuntz: as far as I am concerned, talks 21:29:01 jospoortvliet: okay 21:29:07 collaboration sessions need a bunch of more rooms imho 21:29:08 but we lose one anyway with SUSE labs 21:29:10 vuntz, any and all really. We're talking about if we want to do more read-only or read-writes 21:29:17 for talks, I don't believe tracks matter much, to be honest 21:29:33 suseROCKs: so my proposal is 4 rooms for TALKS of 45 minutes or an hour 21:29:42 vuntz: it makes things easy, yes? 21:29:45 for the context of this discussion I view "tracks" more as "rooms" than as subject matter 21:29:47 I think the working sessions/BoFs/meetings/whatever is where tracks matter more 21:29:49 "talks" as in "read-only" ? 21:30:00 yaloki: yeah 21:30:04 1 room at most for read-only 21:30:08 yaloki: +1 21:30:31 let's get back to topic 21:30:31 I would like some way to strictly enforce that a BoF really is a working session and not a presentation session 21:30:37 basically 21:30:44 there are two ideas of themes right now 21:30:48 I was kind of pissed and felt somewhat defrauded last year when I went toa BoF and it turned out to be a read-only 21:30:50 which also reflect the main focus 21:30:51 suseROCKs: you do that by making a bof room have room for max 20 ppl 21:31:05 * yaloki pauses 21:31:06 and have a no-presentation setup 21:31:09 like no beamer 21:31:17 it's also a way to organize the room 21:31:20 projector is fine, more than 20 is fine too 21:31:27 yaloki: then it will be presentation. 21:31:34 we just need to make clear, as the program committee, that people must label their stuff appropriately 21:31:38 you can't have an in-depth discussion with more than 20 ppl imho 21:31:39 jospoortvliet: have you ever been to uds? 21:31:45 vuntz: no 21:31:45 you can have a beamer for a bof... For example, vuntz extensively uses a beamer in his sessions to record notes 21:31:57 as, for example, make it a requirement to specify whether it's a "talk" or a "BoF" in the CfP 21:31:57 jospoortvliet: they're really good at organizing rw sessions 21:32:06 vuntz: how do they do it? 21:32:10 jospoortvliet: rw sessions work with 50 people too 21:32:28 make sure the seats are organized in a rw way 21:32:30 ok I may have opened a can of worms here but... :-) 21:32:45 * yaloki still waits for a window to get back to the topic 21:32:46 gobby for all sessions 21:32:47 yaloki: well yeah but it often turns into shouting fights. and how many topics have 50 ppl interested? 21:32:58 beamer showing notes being recorded 21:32:58 vuntz: both very good, yes 21:33:00 etc. 21:33:09 projector, definitely, also for BoF 21:33:10 vuntz: nice 21:33:12 ok let's get back to yaloki we can make BoF management its own unique topic 21:33:16 but anyway, let's not digress 21:33:23 I'd agree 20 people per room is fine for rw sessions, but that means you need enough session to accomodate everyone :-) 21:33:26 * yaloki unpauses 21:33:32 two proposals for theme: 21:33:33 suseROCKs: imho we should have talks and bofs. Smaller rooms for bofs, large rooms for talks... 21:33:40 1) Collaboration across borders II 21:33:43 vuntz: sure, we need lots of smaller rooms and a few larger ones 21:33:46 2) rwxrwrwx 21:33:57 everyone stop and focus on yaloki :-) 21:34:01 they do reflect what the main focus should be 21:34:09 1 building upon successful theme 2 very nerdy 21:34:10 it's not just the cool theme tag 21:34:18 jospoortvliet: no 21:34:29 1 = main focus on collaboration with other projects, as last year 21:34:33 yaloki: well the theme is indeed guiding but doesn't have to limit, that depends on the talks you select and the format... 21:34:36 2 = main focus on our own community 21:34:45 I personally *love* the rwx theme. So I'll be biased until someone convinces me otherwise. Just stating for the record 21:34:47 yaloki: I disagree, as you know... 21:34:57 "rwx" means: read, write and execute => everyone is invited to participate and take action, do stuff 21:35:01 fwiw, I find rwxrwrwx very unclear as a theme 21:35:03 #info two themes proposed: "Collaboration Across Borders II" and "rwxrwxrwx" 21:35:13 my main issue is that it needs to be explained 21:35:15 vuntz: 23:34:57 < yaloki> "rwx" means: read, write and execute => everyone is invited to participate and take action, do stuff 21:35:26 vuntz: it's a motto, the explanation follows on the main page of the conference 21:35:28 suseROCKs: imho it can just be "collaboration across borders" that's "the openSUSE Conference Theme". I'd be happy to keep that for a few years... 21:35:37 the II is not needed very much 21:35:39 yaloki: I understand that 21:35:46 please read 21:35:51 right now, it's not about the motto tag 21:35:56 it's about the main focus 21:36:05 collaboration as in 2010, or more opensuse-centric 21:36:07 yaloki: sorry but it's horrible, imho. Like those silly recursive acronyms that make only bearded geeks chuckle and anyone else puke 21:36:26 jospoortvliet: that's your opinion 21:36:40 if you want to talk about the main focus, then let's do that. If you want to talk about the motto, do that. Don't mix them 21:36:40 jospoortvliet, some things do come across that way, but I think even the most basic techie user recognizes rwx 21:36:46 the one reason I like "rwxrwxrwx" is that it might force us to go more towards BoFs 21:36:47 and if we lay it out correctly like this: 21:36:50 rwx: you 21:36:53 rwx: The Project 21:36:56 rwx: The World 21:37:10 yep 21:37:11 It'll end up very self-explanatory. And educational to others 21:37:23 hmmm the x remembers me to the fosdem dance-project :) 21:37:28 and umm.. not to offend anyone. but if you don't know rwx... are you the type of person we need at this conference? 21:37:31 I would prefer to discuss the main focus, and not the motto itself 21:37:33 may I suggest to not use "rwxrwxrwx" to talk about 2 but "opensuse-centric" 21:37:36 ? 21:37:43 vuntz: +1 21:37:48 how do you collaborate if you don't know rwx? 21:37:53 we can still come up with many more silly ideas for the motto ;) 21:38:03 but how much you talk about it it doesn't have the attraction nor the communicative value of "collaboration accross borders". Most ppl will simply respond with "how boring" and look in another direction if they see rwxrwxrwx 21:38:13 jospoortvliet: but IMHO there might be a more underlying thing in that conflict we have on the motto 21:38:14 and that's a bad response to a conf theme :D 21:38:19 I think opensuse-centric makes sense, and we all know that opensuse-centric doesn't mean "opensuse and nothing else" anyway 21:38:26 jospoortvliet: you want: as many people as possible, as much noise as possible 21:38:37 jospoortvliet: I want: not users, but contributors, get stuff done 21:38:53 the main question to me is: are we happy to not attract many non-opensuse people? 21:39:02 vuntz: exactly. I think that is NOT good 21:39:10 jospoortvliet: your opinion 21:39:11 jospoortvliet: well, not necessarily 21:39:11 not a fact 21:39:21 jospoortvliet: it's important to strenghten our own community 21:39:26 vuntz, well... here's the thing. In marketing, we're trying to evolve the message that "Project" means everyone. 21:39:29 it should be open, that's OPENsuse, right? we collaborate, work with others etc and bringing in outside ideas and creativity. Not doing that is a waste 21:39:44 of a good opportunity 21:39:45 jospoortvliet: but we need to build a sense of identity 21:39:45 So if we continue to rain on that message that you can be non-openSUSE and still benefit from Project. we might get it across 21:39:57 jospoortvliet: can also argue that last year was a waste because we didn't get much done on our own stuff 21:40:03 vuntz: true but collaboration IS part of our identity... we just build that up, as suseROCKs said 21:40:15 yaloki: I don't disagree with that point 21:40:20 I want to have a better balance this year 21:40:29 but I don't want to do that by picking a theme that keeps others out 21:40:32 and the press uninterested 21:40:40 jospoortvliet: now you say balance, but you also come across as wanting everything for the marketing 21:40:43 we can do that by having a better way of organizing it 21:40:51 and a better program 21:41:14 and also better target the collaboration topics 21:41:28 as I said before, the libreoffice track at the conference was pointless 21:41:31 yaloki: no, I don't want to trow away what we build up by hard work: a reputation for our conf that it's not ONLY for openSUSE people. That's why I value the theme. THe program itself can have far less non-openSUSE stuff compared to last year, that's fine with me 21:41:39 that, imho, is an example of what we should not do again 21:41:51 yaloki, there is some benefit to marketing. If its noisy and seen as a really "happening" event then it spurs more mindshare and hopefully more contributors who don't even get to go to the conference itself 21:42:02 yaloki: would you think we can have a collaboration track if we choose the opensuse-centric focus? 21:42:02 jospoortvliet: okay, we already disagree then. IMHO the opensuse conference is for the opensuse community. 21:42:19 vuntz: I'd rather think of topics where we have or can have common ground with other projects 21:42:21 If we can guarantee that some awesome projects will come out of the conference that benefit both openSUSE and the World... then that would make these discussions much easier :-) 21:42:28 vuntz: and invite people/projects specifically for those 21:42:35 vuntz: e.g. on systemd it made complete sense 21:42:37 suseROCKs: exactly. Look, the theme is important for communication. The actual program is more important for our own community. So why not focus the program on our own community and the theme on external/marketing :D sounds like a compromise, a balance to me... 21:42:46 yaloki: hrm, let me do s/track/tag/ :-) 21:43:02 jospoortvliet, as in let the marketing team worry about "selling the confernece"? 21:43:19 suseROCKs: yes 21:43:22 vuntz: where did I say track? :) 21:43:24 that's the thinking I have here. Let's not be too focused on marketing in the program committee as the marketing team will do its magic 21:43:29 yaloki: and yes, we should try to be a bit more critical and have topics that at least benefit openSUSE a bit... 21:43:30 yaloki: you didn't, but I did :-) 21:43:45 suseROCKs: but we shouldn't limit the marketing by choosing a hard to market theme... 21:43:51 that's why I agrue to keep 'collaboration' 21:44:06 it's awesome for marketing and talk 21:44:11 erm 21:44:13 but it's a lie 21:44:13 while the actual conference is not influenced that much 21:44:18 * yaloki won't go there 21:44:35 jospoortvliet, but my thinking is "rwxrwxrwx" isn't attractive marketing... but the way I laid it out earlier is 21:44:42 there is a fundamental disagreement here, methinks 21:44:43 yaloki: no, even if we focus twice as much on our own community as last time and get rid of non-relevant stuff like libreOffice, we still are more collaborative than other confs 21:44:51 IMHO the opensuse conference is for opensuse, period 21:44:55 jospoortvliet: define "collaborative"? 21:45:01 Can you imagine a tshirt with rwx: you rwx: Project rwx: the world ? Damn i want that tshirt even if there's no conference! :-D 21:45:02 jospoortvliet: and "other confs"? :-) 21:45:29 won't be more collaborative as all the other non-distro conferences 21:45:43 yaloki: no 21:45:49 but it would be compared to distro confs 21:45:49 sorry, but I don't agree to sacrificing opportunities for the sake of marketing and press announcements 21:45:59 yaloki: what do we sacrifice by having another theme? 21:46:08 it's just relevant for marketing... 21:46:14 okay 21:46:16 jospoortvliet: useless sessions, as compared to opportunities to fill the rooms with useful sessions 21:46:19 that's why it should be good for marketing 21:46:21 so, we have two different things 21:46:27 focus as in "how we organize the event" 21:46:28 yaloki: so why do you say that I argue for useless sessions 21:46:33 while I only talk about the bloody theme? 21:46:41 and themes as in "how to attract some different sets of people to the event" 21:46:44 jospoortvliet: because those collaboration sessions are useless except for good press 21:46:54 yaloki: if I have my way with the theme and YOU with the schedule it's OK for you? 21:46:56 jospoortvliet, yaloki Don't make me put you two in a room by yourselves :-D 21:47:19 vuntz: look the collaborative part is two things for me. One is technical: we do work with others on stuff like systemd and I think that's valuable; I don't care about completely irrelevant stuff (like Yaloki keeps argueing) 21:47:26 the second part is indeed marketing 21:47:30 jospoortvliet: no, because that's exactly the kind of marketing I don't agree with: lies and damn lies just for good press 21:47:34 the collab stuff is great for our external image 21:47:42 you know what? when rwx was first proposed, I asked javier to come up with some mockups so we can see how it looks from a marketing perspective. Why don't we wait to see how it looks as a mockup before we decide? 21:47:52 * AlanClark walks in late, and wonders if the kids need to be separated :-) 21:48:05 I literally believe rwx has awesome marketing appeal, but if we don't see the mockups, we can argue infinitely 21:48:06 suseROCKs: we can definitely delay the motto, not important right now 21:48:39 * yaloki wonders why separate, arguing is fine 21:48:40 How about we ask the question a different way. 21:48:43 jospoortvliet: can we ignore the marketing side for now? 21:48:47 vuntz: ok 21:48:48 so can we at least agree to wait and see how it looks in print before we assume? 21:48:55 suseROCKs: ok... 21:49:21 how about this: 21:49:28 - motto for later, not important right now 21:49:44 - 2/3 at least are for opensuse-only topics 21:50:09 - for collab topics, we'll reach out to projects and people who do stuff that have a direct benefit for us 21:50:17 ? 21:50:19 yaloki: +1 21:50:25 works for me 21:50:28 jospoortvliet: I don't want to get rid of collaboration 21:50:28 the 2/3 leaves me with a question 21:50:41 jospoortvliet: but I have the examples of 2010 in my mind 21:50:42 yaloki: well and I want a majority for opensuse-only stuff... 21:50:46 yaloki: I know, I know 21:50:51 you could easily say those 2/3 is all presentations/howtos for openSUSE or 2/3 being discussions . Do we want to clarify that? 21:51:05 suseROCKs: the proposal I gave was 1/5 colab 1/5 suse labs 3/5 openSUSE-only 21:51:08 I don't think that's the right question 21:51:27 in the CfP, we can make it clear that we very much favour BoFs rather than r-o talks 21:51:27 should we even be including labs in our calculations? We're not really allowed to even be in those rooms 21:51:33 why not leave that to the person proposing the topic, they should know best how it should be presented and the audience 21:51:45 1) we have more proposals than rooms => we favour BoFs 21:51:50 AlanClark: well I think we should indeed define a mix like suseROCKs sais 21:51:54 2) we have less proposals than slots => we take what we get 21:52:07 yaloki: I actually want to leave rooms open for BOF's scheduled up to the conf... 21:52:07 AlanClark, we should emphasize the point. Because lots of people submit talks just so they can get a free ride somewhere 21:52:15 suseROCKs: no, labs is not opensuse conference as far as I am concerned, it's "time sharing" ¬¬ 21:52:23 jospoortvliet: right 21:52:25 we should have BOF rooms and talk rooms. Schedule talk rooms early, bof rooms scheduling stays open? 21:52:29 we'll have to come up with sth for that 21:52:36 or have smaller side rooms or spaces for that 21:52:48 but that'll only be possible once we have the actual configuration of the location 21:52:56 yaloki, right. So any calculations we're doing now shouldn't include Labs. They're just a friendly neighbor 21:52:58 * yaloki has been doing that for 8 years at fosdem 21:53:00 yaloki: I think suse labs just need 1 big room so they can have either talks, bofs or both and let them hande that otherwise by themselves... 21:53:10 suseROCKs: exactly 21:53:10 right 21:53:18 at least something we all agree on :D 21:53:22 labs uses one room, and it's none of our business 21:53:31 * suseROCKs disagrees with himself just for the heck of it 21:53:35 ok let me try to propose something again 21:53:39 let's say we have 2 types of room 21:53:41 big and small 21:53:43 * vuntz isn't sure he agrees on this, but won't fight on that 21:53:52 3 big rooms. 1 for suse labs 21:54:01 1 room for colab talks and 1 for suse talks 21:54:05 vuntz: I'd love to not have that separation, but suse labs wants that separation, not us 21:54:06 then 4 or 5 BOF rooms 21:54:10 mayb even more 21:54:14 yaloki: ah, sad 21:54:16 some smaller some larger 21:54:20 jospoortvliet: that would be perfect 21:54:25 awesome 21:54:27 although 21:54:28 do we really need 3 big rooms? 21:54:38 the collab stuff should also have a big share of BoF 21:54:44 vuntz: well we can start with that if we don't get enough talk proposals let's scale down... 21:54:45 we want stuff to get done, remember :) 21:54:46 I'd rather go for 2 21:54:57 vuntz: let's see what talks come up 21:55:01 IMHO we don't need to think about the rooms, sizes etc.. now 21:55:03 I don't want BOFS to turn into talks 21:55:03 right 21:55:05 well 21:55:06 separate them clearly 21:55:13 let's see what proposals we have and what rooms we have 21:55:24 I've been juggling that kind of stuff for many years at fosdem, we'll manage 21:55:30 ok 21:55:37 the issue is that people will submit talks if we only tell them about talks, while I believe we should instead try to push them to submit BoFs 21:55:41 jospoortvliet, explain wha tyou mean by not being a talk? 21:55:42 looks like we have quite some agreement here 21:55:45 vuntz: agreed 21:55:48 that being said, without knowing the # of rooms, we don't know how many "slots" we have either 21:56:00 vuntz: +1 21:56:01 For example, we had a great two-session governance talk in 2009. By what I'm reading from you, that would not be wanted this time 21:56:04 yaloki: without knowing how many days will last the conf... :-) 21:56:09 suseROCKs: well a bof is interactive. you can give a 3 min read=only intro but otherwise it should be ppl who want to talk about a certain topic in one room 21:56:09 vuntz: aye 21:56:23 can be 15min of presentation 21:56:23 yes okay 21:56:33 IMHO the key thing is that you don't do "10min for Q+A" 21:56:37 yes I was thinking 10 min max presentation (defined as introduction) for bofs 21:56:39 the *purpose* is to discuss 21:56:43 yaloki: exactly 21:56:52 we'll give some guidelines 21:56:59 about how to make good presentations 21:57:03 that kind of rule will help control my urge to throw my cane across the room like I wanted to so badly last time :-D 21:57:04 and what to think about for a BoF 21:57:11 a talk is 45 min talk 10 min Q&A (just trowing some numbers) a bof is maybe 5 min intro but otherwise talk by everyone 21:57:13 yaloki - for fosdem did you write up guidelines that we coould look at? 21:57:25 AlanClark: no, the projects make their own schedules 21:57:30 yaloki: basically a bof shouldn't have slides 21:57:32 imho 21:57:37 AlanClark: e.g. we give a room to Mozilla, and they make their own schedule in their room 21:57:46 yaloki: and +1 on "guidelines for presentations" 21:57:50 jospoortvliet: disagree :) 21:57:55 lemme take an example 21:57:55 yaloki - I meant a description and preparation the presenter should do for a BOF 21:58:03 AlanClark: not really, no 21:58:08 AlanClark: but I can write that up, np 21:58:09 jospoortvliet, you gotta at least give a primer on some topics. We can't handcuff these folks that much 21:58:13 lemme give an example 21:58:15 yaloki: what do you disagree on, no slides for bof? 21:58:23 let's say I want to have a session about webpin2 21:58:25 suseROCKs: imho you can give a talk on a subject and a bof on it later 21:58:33 I'd make a 10-15min presentation 21:58:43 about the concept/goals, what's there, what remains to be done 21:58:47 slides are good for that 21:58:53 but then, I want at least 30-45min to discuss 21:59:05 or even longer if the topic is worthy 21:59:07 that, IMHO, is "read/write" 21:59:09 suseROCKs: yeah 21:59:18 I mean 21:59:18 wasn't our governance sessions 2 hours long? 21:59:20 I want to see it broken down a bit differently 21:59:28 there's no formalism 21:59:31 and 1h for the x implement webpin2 :) 21:59:33