Re: [lb/2003] Talk selection criteria
- On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Atul Chitnis wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Biju Chacko wrote:How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated more
> > 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? ;-)
equal than others?
PHP Applications for E-Biz: http://www.sanisoft.com -o)
Indian PHP User Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/in-phpug _\_v
- On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Dr Tarique Sani wrote:
> How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated moreSimple - we trust the managers to be unbiased.
> equal than others?
Atul Chitnis | achitnis@...
Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
- 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 ...
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".
--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 theI feel a small re-tuning of this whole process should do.Have a multi track
> 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").
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"Absolutely, lets focus on quality.
> 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.
Visit me at http://prady.net
Mail : prady at prady dot net
- 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
(a) The speaker has laid out his thoughts and structured as to what
(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
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 email@example.com, Atul Chitnis
> OK all, enough fun and games, let's get back to work, shall we?INstead
> This year, we are going to change the format of talk volunteering.
> of the informal "wanna give a talk, fill form", we are moving to themore
> formal "paper submission" model.basis of
> This means that we are going to evaluate proposed talks on on the
> the subject but on the basis of actual content. This means thatspeakers
> who would like to speak at the event will have to submit not just theirthese
> 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
> were very few, but they were still embarrassing.allow
> 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
> many foreign speakers to have a chance to participate in LB/3.discipline
> 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
> to prepare like this well in advance.discussion,
> 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
> 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.
> Atul Chitnis | achitnis@e...
> Exocore Consulting | http://www.exocore.com
> Bangalore, India | +91 (80) 344-0397
- On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:50:42AM +0530, Atul Chitnis wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Dr Tarique Sani wrote:*Cough* yeah.....*Cough*, we should .....ummmm......try that ;)
> > How do we assure everyone that some animals are not being treated more
> > equal than others?
> Simple - we trust the managers to be unbiased.
If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want
hits the paper.
Sid Carter - http://khader.net/