Re: Barcelona report

[Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <uraeus linuxrising org>]

On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 09:46 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Glynn Foster a �it :
> > 25 May, Thu. People start arriving
> > 26 May, Fri. Social day for all GNOME people - bbq, beers, activities
> > 27 May, Sat. GUADEC Developer Day 1
> > 28 May, Sun. GUADEC Developer Day 2
> > 29 May, Mon  IGC -+
> > 30 May, Tue  IGC  | - GNOME User and Business Sessions - everything from
> > 31 May, Wed  IGC -+   tutorials, to talks, to BOF's
> 
> Let's end the user/business days insanity this year and just have one 
> GUADEC. Business/government/user talks can and should be scheduled 
> during the "developer" days, and there is no reason not to have 
> developer oriented sessions during the week.

Depends on the angle for those talks. The kind we have had earlier years
are 110% uninteresting for GNOME contributors so having them on
'developer days' is a waste of time and resources. Historically they
also been a waste of time on the 'user day', but in this case we will
not be doing a user day but instead just providing some talks to the IGC
conference. So such talks might hit home with the IGC crowd, while we
know by empirical evidence that there are no interest among 'GUADEC
goers' in them.


> I seem to recall someone (Miguel, maybe?) mentioning that most people 
> would be leaving the US on Friday, and arriving in Europe on Saturday 
> morning or afternoon, That was the likely motivation behind wanting to 
> start with a chill-out day on Saturday, and start the conference proper 
> on Sunday.
> 
> I'm happy either way.
On the other hand local people in Spain and Europe are more likely to be
able to attend on Saturday and Sunday, and then have to return to work
etc., on monday. And US people will lose just as many workdays anyway,
cause instead of losing friday they are losing Wednesday.


> > I don't believe it would be that hard to pull off - it's taking the
> > ingredients from the previous years, and putting them in an organized
> > 'non-conflict of interests' fashion ;)
> 
> Some of the ingredients of previous years need adjusting. And I don't 
> think we should be trying to avoid conflicts of interest by 
> compartmentalising things.

Agreed, Christian