Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [lb/2003] Talk selection criteria

Expand Messages
  • Atul Chitnis
    ... Catch 22 - do we want to do an event for the sake of doing it, or to produce quality content? ;-) IMHO, it is not too difficult for anyone to adopt the
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 16, 2003
      On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Biju Chacko wrote:

      > This has some pros and cons. I think we should not exclude the 'amateur'
      > style completely. The submission model will attract more professional
      > talks but they will tend to be (IMHO) of more interest to the more
      > experienced crowd.

      Catch 22 - do we want to do an event for the sake of doing it, or to
      produce quality content? ;-)

      IMHO, it is not too difficult for anyone to adopt the slightly more
      professional approach of planning their talks (heck, they'd have to do it
      anyway at least minutes before the talk, so why not a couple of months
      before?).

      > Unless we are planning to re-target the conference, the informal style
      > is likely to provide more value to the kind of mass audience we have so
      > far been attracting.

      In fact, it is precisely this point that is causing us to consider the
      more pro-style approach. Informality is not excluded in any way, what we
      are trying to weed out is talks by people who give talks for the sake of
      giving talks - either to establish their own names ("was speaker at LB/x")
      or to establish their organisation ("flood the place with speakers from
      our org, never mind quality").

      I do not doubt for a *second* that our audiences will reduce if we enforce
      quality control.

      > Perhaps we should consider a multi-track approach. A paper-submission
      > track and an amateur track.

      We actually had that in mind for LB/2 - and it didn't work on paper, and
      would have been a disaster in real life.

      Simply put - the demand for speaker slots at LB/x is extremely high. We
      used our "weeding shears" fairly heavily, and there was a lot of roadkill
      along the way, with talks being chopped for several good reasons (not
      always quality, however).

      A multitrack approach would simply mean that people who wouldn't make it
      past the stringent pro-level filters would instead submit to the amateur
      tracks, crowding out the *real* amateurs.

      Nope, I think we should use LB/x's popularity and success to teach people
      a few things apart from tech - including discipline ("prepare that talk,
      don't try to do an extempore presentation"), timing, slides quality, etc.
      These are things people will need all their lives, so why not get them
      used to it now?

      I think the confusion here lies in what you understand to be "pro-level"
      and "amateur". The only thing we are actually doing is to eliminate the
      stuff we don't want to see at the event - bad (or no) preparation, shallow
      content, lack of context, redundancy, etc.

      Comments?

      Atul

      --
      -------------------------------------------
      Atul Chitnis | achitnis@...
      Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
      Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
      -------------------------------------------
    • Dr Tarique Sani
      ... How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated more equal than others? Tarique --
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 16, 2003
        On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Atul Chitnis wrote:

        > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Biju Chacko wrote:
        >
        > > This has some pros and cons. I think we should not exclude the 'amateur'
        > > style completely. The submission model will attract more professional
        > > talks but they will tend to be (IMHO) of more interest to the more
        > > experienced crowd.
        >
        > Catch 22 - do we want to do an event for the sake of doing it, or to
        > produce quality content? ;-)

        How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated more
        equal than others?

        Tarique

        --
        ===================================================================
        PHP Applications for E-Biz: http://www.sanisoft.com -o)
        /\\
        Indian PHP User Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/in-phpug _\_v
        ===================================================================
      • Atul Chitnis
        ... Simple - we trust the managers to be unbiased. Atul -- ... Atul Chitnis | achitnis@exocore.com Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com Bangalore,
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 16, 2003
          On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Dr Tarique Sani wrote:

          > How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated more
          > equal than others?

          Simple - we trust the managers to be unbiased.

          Atul

          --
          -------------------------------------------
          Atul Chitnis | achitnis@...
          Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
          Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
          -------------------------------------------
        • Kenneth Gonsalves
          some general observations that may help this discussion: 1. the conference was a success in that it convinced all the participants about using open source
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 17, 2003
            some general observations that may help this discussion:

            1. the conference was a success in that it convinced all the participants
            about using open source products. but, it seemed the consensus that open
            source programming was for the other guys - the govt, infosys, microsoft etc
            etc should produce opensource stuff, but not ME boss!! for example, although
            i spoke on programming perl with the enduser as a partner, the two hottest
            topics in question period were - how to encrypt the perl code so no one can
            pirate it and which will give me a better job - perl or php.

            2. if the aim of the conference is to popularise the use of opensource to
            develop closed source apps, and this is what the majority of the delegates
            came to find out, obviously getting professionals to present papers would
            ensure a sellout crowd next year.

            3. if on the other hand the aim is to help build an opensource movement in
            india, efforts will have to be made to include amateurs, end-users, non-it
            part time programmers and the other riff raff who, as far as i know, are at
            the hub of the opensource movement worldwide.

            4. given the current intellectual climate in the country, this would be an
            uphill task with very few takers - but maybe it would be worth undertaking ...

            kg
            On Wednesday 15 January 2003 12:40, you wrote:
            > OK all, enough fun and games, let's get back to work, shall we?
            >
            > This year, we are going to change the format of talk volunteering. INstead
            > of the informal "wanna give a talk, fill form", we are moving to the more
            > formal "paper submission" model.
            >
            > This means that we are going to evaluate proposed talks on on the basis of
            > the subject but on the basis of actual content. This means that speakers
            > who would like to speak at the event will have to submit not just their
            > slides, but a formal writeup containing their talk - the "paper".
          • Pradyumna Sampath
            Hi, ... I feel a small re-tuning of this whole process should do.Have a multi track approach, with good quality talks for the user,adm,cxo,dev,etc.. using a
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 17, 2003
              Hi,

              --On Thursday 16 Jan 2003 1:43 pm, Atul Chitnis mumbled this:

              > In fact, it is precisely this point that is causing us to consider the
              > more pro-style approach. Informality is not excluded in any way, what we
              > are trying to weed out is talks by people who give talks for the sake of
              > giving talks - either to establish their own names ("was speaker at LB/x")
              > or to establish their organisation ("flood the place with speakers from
              > our org, never mind quality").

              I feel a small re-tuning of this whole process should do.Have a multi track
              approach, with good quality talks for the user,adm,cxo,dev,etc.. using a
              screening methodology be it paper presentations or otherwise.This way I think
              we'll be targetting the whole spectrum.

              > I think the confusion here lies in what you understand to be "pro-level"
              > and "amateur". The only thing we are actually doing is to eliminate the
              > stuff we don't want to see at the event - bad (or no) preparation, shallow
              > content, lack of context, redundancy, etc.

              Absolutely, lets focus on quality.

              --
              Visit me at http://prady.net
              Mail : prady at prady dot net
            • myriadmydeas <myriadmydeas@yahoo.com>
              In MYHO, this is a real good idea. This will also address the major crib I for one have had - Inability learn from other (not just by listening, which can get
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 19, 2003
                In MYHO, this is a real good idea. This will also address the major
                crib I for one have had - Inability learn from other (not just by
                listening, which can get grazed by time).

                The structured talks (formal or otherwise), shall have the following
                advantages:

                (a) The speaker has laid out his thoughts and structured as to what
                to speak.

                (b) The target audience for the talk can be assessed by the
                organisers to accordingly slot the talk.

                (c) The talk slots are accutely in short supply and all those who
                would like to contribute do not get a chance.

                (d) All the papers can become part of the souvenier edition that can
                be preserved. I am not telling whether it should be in paper or CD.
                This shall have both the sentimental value and also be a continous
                reference source.

                Informal approach to talk does not mean not to write to paper, with
                some sense of purpose and objective. Informal talk can be a mode of
                presenting to the audience, depending on the style of the speaker.

                What we need to have is to get papers for the conference, select a sub
                set based on available slots and target audience for presentation,
                compile the whole lot to be made available for all the participants as
                part of the delegate kit. This would also satiasfy the "also spoke in
                LB/X" guy to say "also wrote for LB/X".

                Let us have method in madness, not madness in method. I feel what Mr
                Chitnis has proposed is the former - Bring some method to Madness, and
                I second the proposal whole heartedly,


                --- In linux-bangalore-2003@yahoogroups.com, Atul Chitnis
                <achitnis@e...> wrote:
                > OK all, enough fun and games, let's get back to work, shall we?
                >
                > This year, we are going to change the format of talk volunteering.
                INstead
                > of the informal "wanna give a talk, fill form", we are moving to the
                more
                > formal "paper submission" model.
                >
                > This means that we are going to evaluate proposed talks on on the
                basis of
                > the subject but on the basis of actual content. This means that
                speakers
                > who would like to speak at the event will have to submit not just their
                > slides, but a formal writeup containing their talk - the "paper".
                >
                > While many of the talks at LB/2 were great stuff, some speakers very
                > noticably gave very shallow talks, without depth at all. Thankfully
                these
                > were very few, but they were still embarrassing.
                >
                > We are now taking steps to exclude talks whose only purpose are to
                > establish speakers (or their organisations), and are therefore going to
                > put out a formal "call for submissions" fairly soon. This will also
                allow
                > many foreign speakers to have a chance to participate in LB/3.
                >
                > This, however, is going to hit many of the students and "non-pro" type
                > people who would want to give a talk, because they just don't have the
                > experience with stuff like this, and definitely do not have the
                discipline
                > to prepare like this well in advance.
                >
                > One thing that can be done to fix this is to urge people to give their
                > proposed talks at LUG meets in their cities, so that they actually are
                > more prepared than they would be if this was a "fresh" talk.
                >
                > Any thoughts on this?
                >
                > Also, one more thing - this list has a specific purpose - the
                discussion,
                > planning and execution of Linux Bangalore/2003. This is *not* a generic
                > Linux discussion list or a clubhouse. So please keep this in mind when
                > posting to the lists.
                >
                > Thanks
                >
                > Atul
                >
                > --
                > -------------------------------------------
                > Atul Chitnis | achitnis@e...
                > Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
                > Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
                > -------------------------------------------
              • Sid Carter
                ... *Cough* yeah.....*Cough*, we should .....ummmm......try that ;) Regards Sid -- DeVries s Dilemma: If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don t
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 29, 2003
                  On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:50:42AM +0530, Atul Chitnis wrote:
                  > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Dr Tarique Sani wrote:
                  >
                  > > How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated more
                  > > equal than others?
                  >
                  > Simple - we trust the managers to be unbiased.

                  *Cough* yeah.....*Cough*, we should .....ummmm......try that ;)

                  Regards
                  Sid
                  --
                  DeVries's Dilemma:
                  If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want
                  hits the paper.

                  Sid Carter - http://khader.net/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.