PMC Generated Content, Training and the current CFPs

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Under this new model of selecting content, is the PMC responsible for  
pre-conference training as well as the "conference" content?

Also, how do we get access to the CFP system?  I've already heard from  
several people who put into the CFP system expecting to hear results  
back by now.  What do we tell them?  Seems a bit weird to have  
solicited CFPs and then basically leave those people up in the air.

-Grant

Re: PMC Generated Content, Training and the current CFPs

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: In the past: http://www.eu.apachecon.com/c/aceu2009/schedule/2009/03/25 it was
: 6 per day, at 50 mins each, but I think one thing on the table here is to open
: up the format some.

If we're allowed to be more flexible with the format, then i would *love* 
to be able to split the material from my "Out of the Box" talk in two and 
expand the demo section ... in the past the "What is Solr" intro that 
explains Solr to beginers from the ground up, and goes over the basic 
concepts has taken the first 40 minutes -- but that could be compressed 
into a 30 minute intro.

I've always had to compress the "OOTB Demo" section (where i show how to 
start from scratch given random data i found on the web and build up a 
custom schema) into about 15 minutes, so it winds up being like a cooking 
show: here's hte ingredients, we pop the turkey in the oven and through 
the magic of television it's immediately cooked.  Ideally the OOTB Demo 
could be a full hour really showing all of the steps to tuning/tweaking a 
schema.   ... but that would only work if there had already been a "What 
is Solr" type intro before hand.


-Hoss

Re: PMC Generated Content, Training and the current CFPs

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> This feels about right.
>
> Does this translate into roughly 10 x 1 hour talks?

In the past: http://www.eu.apachecon.com/c/aceu2009/schedule/ 
2009/03/25 it was 6 per day, at 50 mins each, but I think one thing on  
the table here is to open up the format some.

Thus, for instance, we could have a mix of shorter "fast feather"  
talks, along with traditional talks.  I'd love to see a "Fast Feather  
Use Cases" talk for say, 60 minutes, where each speaker is given 10-15  
minutes to describe what they do w/ the Lucene Ecosystem.

We could likely fill up 3 days too, similar to what Hadoop does.   
Still 2 days plus a meetup sounds right to me, but heh, that's just  
one opinion.  I'm looking forward to seeing the CFPs.


>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll  
> <gs...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> 2 conf. days, plus 0.5 for a meetup, which is usually at night
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids)  
using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search

Re: PMC Generated Content, Training and the current CFPs

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

This feels about right.

Does this translate into roughly 10 x 1 hour talks?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:

> 2 conf. days, plus 0.5 for a meetup, which is usually at night




-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

Re: PMC Generated Content, Training and the current CFPs

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

OK, I re-asked on Concom and the gist of it is (copied below):

They are going to send us a PDF of the CFP related to our area.  I  
think we should wait until we get that list before deciding anything  
is "for sure".  Thus, I have moved the items under "for sure", back  
into the other section of undecided.  Although, I still think it is  
safe to assume we have one Intro talk for each project that wants  
one.  However, for now, I will even leave those off the "for sure" list.

Pre-conference Training is not part of our obligations.  They (the  
planners) will be taking training from the CFP system as they always  
have.

It sounds like for now, we just need to pin down how many days we need  
(I'm going to throw out: 2 conf. days, plus 0.5 for a meetup, which is  
usually at night) and a description of our target audience.

I think we also need to come up with some criteria for selecting  
speakers/content.
<completely_my_opinion_and_not_the_criteria>
To me, we need a mix of intro, medium and advanced talks.  We need  
some original content (i.e. this isn't the same talk rehashed for the  
5th time)  We need a mix of speakers (committers/contributors, users,  
etc.)  We also need technical and some non-technical.  Most of all, we  
need compelling content that is going to get the community interested  
in actually paying to attend.
</completely_my_opinion_and_not_the_criteria>


<concom response>
The PMC will get a file (pdf or whatnot) of all CFP's that were accepted
through the first round of cuts.

The PMC will do what the planners would have to do no matter what, cut
that further; then go back to the proposers with suggestions that would
make that content more current/interesting/useful, and accept some CFPs
outright.  And fill in the missing content, large information holes with
some new ideas spun up from the PMC.

Does that make sense?  It honors the contribution of all who submitted
through the CFP process, while allowing the PMC to decide what is on  
topic
and attractive, rather than leaving the entire process to 9 or 10 people
who aren't nearly as familiar with your PMC's project as you are :)
</concom response>


On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> Under this new model of selecting content, is the PMC responsible  
> for pre-conference training as well as the "conference" content?
>
> Also, how do we get access to the CFP system?  I've already heard  
> from several people who put into the CFP system expecting to hear  
> results back by now.  What do we tell them?  Seems a bit weird to  
> have solicited CFPs and then basically leave those people up in the  
> air.
>
> -Grant