[Linux-aus] Re: Request for Change on how MiniConf's are handled. (resent)
jdub at perkypants.org
Mon Jul 3 07:40:03 UTC 2006
<quote who="Tim Ansell">
> Firstly, I would like to see the Miniconfs separated from the
> Papers/Tutorial process. Miniconfs would be better served by a process
> which a proposal is put forward and made public. The final selection of
> Miniconfs would still, of course, be by the LCA committee.
> This would prevent the case where multiple people propose similar
> Miniconfs which would be better served by a combined Miniconf. For example
> say "Gnome Office", "Open Office" and "KDE Office" put forward proposals,
> it could be merged into an "Open Source Office" Miniconf.
The linux.conf.au organising teams often help with this kind of thing.
> It would also allow people to offer to help out and better see what
> efforts are going on.
That's one benefit of doing it in a public forum, but which public forum
would you use? Not everyone who wants to run a miniconf is going to be in
the right place to watch all of this.
I understand the desire for this enhancement, but I don't think it wildly
improves the process compared to the amount of additional work it creates
(for conference organisers and miniconf organisers).
> The LCA itself has a timetable and it would make sense that the
> Miniconfs have a similar timetable.
> Thirdly, I would like to see better integration between the LCA and the
> For example, publishing the Miniconfs timetables as part of the LCA
> timetable would be a huge help for participants.
We're doing both of these for linux.conf.au 2007.
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
Echidnas, or at least the ones I've met, don't have joy. Adults very
rarely have joy. Kids have hyperkinetic nuclear joy in abundance.
More information about the linux-aus