Re: Schedule commentary

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org> writes:
> 
> A bit of commentary on the proposed schedule. I've had some experience with
> conference stuff, having helped organise linux.conf.au 2001, whilst Glynn
> kept coming up with good ideas, so he pestered me into mailing this. ;-)
> 
>   - 9am-8pm sounds too long; although there are 2 hour lunch breaks, having
>     talks all the way through is pretty tiring. Having non-talk things from
>     about 6pm worked for us. They were either dinners/drinks, or
>     get-togethers of other kinds, but not sit-in-room-listening activities.
> 
>   - 10-15 minute breaks between talks let everyone chatter and wander for a
>     bit, without making everything else late. That puts pressure on the talk
>     times...
> 
>   - Keynotes are the same length as talks, which may not give enough time
>     for discussion; 1 1/2 hours would be good.
> 
>   - Perhaps some shorter talks of 30 minutes could bring down the schedule
>     times a bit; I'm sure some speakers would like that too. ;-)
> 
>   - Would a tutorials day be better than having them interspersed
>     throughout? We found that the tutorials day was a great chance to either
>     learn in the tutorials, or take part in crazy hacking outside the
>     tutorials. Keeping them separate may help that.
>

All good stuff.
 
>   - There's a lack of brainstorming sessions for future directions in GNOME;
>     last year these were scheduled, not random.
>

I think many people are determined to avoid 200-person planning
sessions this time ;-) 
 
Havoc