Re: [Linux-aus] linux.conf.au Possible *Future* Programme Format

[Glen Turner <glen.turner@aarnet.edu.au>]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

> As per linux.conf.au 2007, it is *already* one week. We consider miniconfs
> to be part of the conference, we have the conference opening on Monday and
> close on Friday afternoon (and close really properly on Friday night at the
> dinner).


Hi Jeff,

The big advantage of the current format is that people only *need* to
attend the conference for 3 days.  Many people would have problems
getting management approval for a full week away from the office.

About the only time left is the evenings. You might look to the
IETF meetings to see how they make very effective use of that time
to do something akin to mini-miniconfs with their Birds of a Feather
sessions.  Similarly the unofficial NANOG schedule has some meetings
of like-minded people starting at 8pm. In the past lca hasn't been
set up to allow people to hang about (and in the uni setting the
logistics are much harder for late night get togethers as security
want to secure the buildings, which is less of an issue for the
IETF and NANOG hotel-based conferences as hotels are used to late
night events).

I wouldn't be fussed about the rejection rate. Conferences like SIGCOMM
and SIGGRAPH have rejection rates of 90% but remain healthy. Some
conferences with high rejection rates allow 10% of the slots to be
filled by the local organisers rather than by the paper committee,
and that allows room for marginally-related but deeply fascinating
speakers to make it into the programme in a role other than as
a keynote speaker. [1]

Simon's point about miniconfs finding it hard to compete has
a flipside too. You wouldn't want a massively successful miniconf
dragging people away from the main conference as this leads
to a lot of logistical hassles -- for one thing the main
conference is usually in the largest lecture theaters. We
had that problem in Adelaide where the GNOME miniconf was
unexpectedly large and we simply ran out of space.

> Me puts my hand up.  IMHO it would be a good idea to let the miniconfs
> run for as many days as they need in parallel with the main conf

The practicalities here are a problem for all but the smallest
of miniconfs. Generally the space used by the miniconfs is
space the conference uses in the later days.  Miniconfs running
in parallel with the conference are going to find themselves
in space well away from the main conference. And that means
the miniconfs are going to ride on the coattails of lca less
(additional resources for coffee stations, more wireless APs,
more distance for organisers to need to cover, etc).

Please don't read any of the above as opposition. It's more
a stream of consciousness on the possible downsides.

Cheers,
Glen

 [1] You see something similar with Tim's telescope example,
     most telescopes have 10% of the slots determined at the
     whim of the facility's director.