diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | 2023/organizers-notebook.md | 106 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2023/organizers-notebook/index.org | 77 |
2 files changed, 183 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2023/organizers-notebook.md b/2023/organizers-notebook.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..01ee0c75 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/organizers-notebook.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +<!-- organizers-notebook.md is exported from organizers-notebook/index.org, please modify that instead. --> +[[!sidebar content=""]] + +This file is automatically exported from [/2022/organizers-notebook/index.org](/2022/organizers-notebook/index.org). You might prefer to navigate this as an Org file instead. To do so, [clone the wiki repository](https://emacsconf.org/edit/). + + +# Table of Contents + +- [Timeline](#org7f988ad) +- [Lessons learned from previous years](#org91fec84) + + +<a id="org7f988ad"></a> + +# Timeline + +Last year, these were the actual dates: + +- July 17: CFP sent +- Sept 18: Original CFP deadline +- Sept 30: CFP closed after extension +- Oct 1: acceptances sent + + +<a id="org91fec84"></a> + +# Lessons learned from previous years + + +## CFP and review + +- Ask for public e-mail or contact information, IRC handle in CFP + - Added to submit page. +- Be even more stringent about the 10/20/40-min splits. A lot of + speakers still default to the 20- or 40-min formats without + providing us shorter formats, and that puts strain on our schedule + and requires us to use a different template for the notification + (which can be confusing). We need to stress that not respecting the + format makes it harder not only for the organizers, but also for the + speakers themselves (since they will have to rethink their + presentation). Maybe we can have an e-mail template for a quick + reply that says something like “Just in case we need to squeeze + talks into shorter times, could you please also propose an outline + for a possible 10-minute talk that could get people interested in + your topic and point them to where they can find out more?” + - sachac: I’d love to experiment with rolling acceptances. If people + have a good 10-20 minute version of their talk and we want to + accept it in the program, it would be nice to be able to say yes + early so that they can start working on it. We can work with any + duplication of content in later proposals. +- Two people is the sweet number of reviewers to have for the + proposals before sending the notifications, and there’d be + diminishing returns with more. Two is enough to release the pressure + on SCHED, verify the metadata (esp. speaker availability), and + suggest a different ordering where appropriate. It can take a long + time to comb through the proposals (roughly 10 proposals per hour), + and whilst it’d be difficult to justify more in-depth reviewers, + other orgas can do a shallow-pass to catch red-flags or discuss the + submissions as they come in. Other organizers can always chime in on + topics they particularly care about so that their encouraging + comments or suggestions can be included in the acceptance e-mail. + - sachac: Who wants to help me with this? +- We extended CFP-end by two weeks this year, but that made it coincide + with speaker-notifs, and that’s awkward. Next time, we should only + extend the CFP by one week to avoid having to scramble with the + schedule until the very last day. + - Proposed dates in <https://emacsconf.org/2023/cfp/> have similar + spacing, so yeah, we’ll want to extend by only one week. +- Some people assume that they have to suggest longer formats even if + they intend their talks to be 10′ or 20′. We should change the + wording on the CFP to ask them to only provide alternatives for + shorter formats, not longer. + - Added a brief note to CFP. +- It was hard to squeeze all the org/hyperbole talk on day-1. + Generally, the people who submit these kinds of talk come from all + over the world, and US mornings are more accommodating than US + evenings when it comes to timezones. We might consider having two org + **mornings** rather than an org **day**; it would give us more flexibility + with those talks. + - Let’s see if we can do two streams again. That was fun. +- We’re starting to reach critical mass on the org-talks. We might want + to consider splitting the org-talks and the dev-talks into two + distinct events to allow them to grow independently. + - Let’s see if we can do two streams again. That was fun. +- We should associate time-of-day with CFP-deadline; otherwise, the + scheduler has to be on edge until the very end of the day. It’s worse + this year because we made CFP-end coincide with speaker-notif, so this + might not be as much of a problem next year. + - If we do rolling acceptances and we extend by at most one week + instead of two, this should be fine. +- It’s easier for us to extend beyond 5pm than to go before 9am + (especially for the West coast). Extending beyond 5pm puts strain on + European organizers and volunteers, though. + - Time pressure should be alleviated with multiple streams. +- Sometimes, ikiwiki on front0 took a lot of time to process the new + commits. sachac assumed this is due to a faulty regex parsing. We + should be able to find out more by looking at the logs from ikiwiki + after a slow commit. + - Seems speedy at the moment. +- Ask for preferred timezone in CFP + - Added to availability. +- Check with John Wiegley re: schedule - we always happen to coincide + with his work trips + - I checked with him and the people at his work don’t have a schedule + yet, so we should go ahead and plan + diff --git a/2023/organizers-notebook/index.org b/2023/organizers-notebook/index.org index 7e21eaea..337624ea 100644 --- a/2023/organizers-notebook/index.org +++ b/2023/organizers-notebook/index.org @@ -20,4 +20,81 @@ Last year, these were the actual dates: - Sept 18: Original CFP deadline - Sept 30: CFP closed after extension - Oct 1: acceptances sent +* Lessons learned from previous years +** CFP and review + +- Ask for public e-mail or contact information, IRC handle in CFP + - Added to submit page. +- Be even more stringent about the 10/20/40-min splits. A lot of + speakers still default to the 20- or 40-min formats without + providing us shorter formats, and that puts strain on our schedule + and requires us to use a different template for the notification + (which can be confusing). We need to stress that not respecting the + format makes it harder not only for the organizers, but also for the + speakers themselves (since they will have to rethink their + presentation). Maybe we can have an e-mail template for a quick + reply that says something like "Just in case we need to squeeze + talks into shorter times, could you please also propose an outline + for a possible 10-minute talk that could get people interested in + your topic and point them to where they can find out more?" + - sachac: I'd love to experiment with rolling acceptances. If people + have a good 10-20 minute version of their talk and we want to + accept it in the program, it would be nice to be able to say yes + early so that they can start working on it. We can work with any + duplication of content in later proposals. +- Two people is the sweet number of reviewers to have for the + proposals before sending the notifications, and there’d be + diminishing returns with more. Two is enough to release the pressure + on SCHED, verify the metadata (esp. speaker availability), and + suggest a different ordering where appropriate. It can take a long + time to comb through the proposals (roughly 10 proposals per hour), + and whilst it’d be difficult to justify more in-depth reviewers, + other orgas can do a shallow-pass to catch red-flags or discuss the + submissions as they come in. Other organizers can always chime in on + topics they particularly care about so that their encouraging + comments or suggestions can be included in the acceptance e-mail. + - sachac: Who wants to help me with this? +- We extended CFP-end by two weeks this year, but that made it coincide + with speaker-notifs, and that’s awkward. Next time, we should only + extend the CFP by one week to avoid having to scramble with the + schedule until the very last day. + - Proposed dates in https://emacsconf.org/2023/cfp/ have similar + spacing, so yeah, we'll want to extend by only one week. +- Some people assume that they have to suggest longer formats even if + they intend their talks to be 10′ or 20′. We should change the + wording on the CFP to ask them to only provide alternatives for + shorter formats, not longer. + - Added a brief note to CFP. +- It was hard to squeeze all the org/hyperbole talk on day-1. + Generally, the people who submit these kinds of talk come from all + over the world, and US mornings are more accommodating than US + evenings when it comes to timezones. We might consider having two org + *mornings* rather than an org *day*; it would give us more flexibility + with those talks. + - Let's see if we can do two streams again. That was fun. +- We’re starting to reach critical mass on the org-talks. We might want + to consider splitting the org-talks and the dev-talks into two + distinct events to allow them to grow independently. + - Let's see if we can do two streams again. That was fun. +- We should associate time-of-day with CFP-deadline; otherwise, the + scheduler has to be on edge until the very end of the day. It’s worse + this year because we made CFP-end coincide with speaker-notif, so this + might not be as much of a problem next year. + - If we do rolling acceptances and we extend by at most one week + instead of two, this should be fine. +- It’s easier for us to extend beyond 5pm than to go before 9am + (especially for the West coast). Extending beyond 5pm puts strain on + European organizers and volunteers, though. + - Time pressure should be alleviated with multiple streams. +- Sometimes, ikiwiki on front0 took a lot of time to process the new + commits. sachac assumed this is due to a faulty regex parsing. We + should be able to find out more by looking at the logs from ikiwiki + after a slow commit. + - Seems speedy at the moment. +- Ask for preferred timezone in CFP + - Added to availability. +- Check with John Wiegley re: schedule - we always happen to coincide + with his work trips + - I checked with him and the people at his work don't have a schedule + yet, so we should go ahead and plan |