Tue Apr 3 06:46:16 UTC 2007
participation now and asking people to submit presentations/papers and
miniconfs eliminates the load of managing two separate submission
Transparency is gold. Getting community feedback on a miniconf
proposal is vital for the momentum of that proposal.
We heartily encourage miniconf organisers to submit their proposal
through the CFP interface, as well as make their submissions public by
posting them here, or any other mailing list.
This should have been clearly articulated. :-)
> Secondly, I would like to see more structure for the Miniconfs given by
> the organisers. What I mean, is that the LCA organisers would give
> guidelines for when to start/have morning tea/break for lunch.
> Suggestions on how to plan the timetable would also be useful.
This is happening at LCA 2007. We'll be setting a timetable in place,
and will be asking that miniconf organisers stick to it.
> 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. This would only require
> the Miniconfs to submit a timetable in a certain format before a certain
> date. This would also be made a lot easier by the points in my second
See above. :-) Miniconf organisers will be able to do scheduling
themselves, submit, and update their timetable as needed.
> I think this stuff needs to be discussed, which is why I'm forwarding
> this to the list.
> Please note that I'm not trying to attack any of the LCA organisers.
> They do a wonderful job and every LCAs I have been to has been really
Miniconfs should not be treated as second-class citizens, and any
suggestion towards improving miniconfs or the miniconf process is
More information about the linux-aus