[[!sidebar content=""]] This file is automatically exported from [/2023/organizers-notebook/index.org](/2023/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](#timeline) - [Phases](#phases) - [Archive](#archive) # Timeline

CFP	[2023-06-26 Mon]
CFP deadline	[2023-09-14 Thu]
Speaker notifications	[2023-09-25 Mon]
Publish schedule	[2023-10-30 Mon]
Video submission deadline	[2023-11-03 Fri]
EmacsConf	[2023-12-02 Sat], [2023-12-03 Sun]

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 ## TODO Dry run # Phases ## Draft CFP ### How to mark pages as drafts Put inside double square brackets: `!template id=pagedraft` ### Considerations We could see if there are parts of the CFP that we can remove or postpone. Here are some thoughts: - We might not need the 10+20+40 structure in the proposal. We did that before because people tend to propose longer talks, and we had to do lots of e-mail coordination in order to squeeze everything into one track. If we’re doing multiple streams, there’s less time pressure, so we might not need to confuse people with those requirements. I think it would still be good to nudge people towards 20 minutes for their prerecorded presentations (separate time for Q&A) instead of 40 minutes, because it’s good for people’s attention spans. As an incentive to consider a 5-10 minute talk, we can say that 5-10 minute videos can be played extra times during the conference to fill gaps. - Choices: - Keep the 10+20+40 structure so that people who want to propose longer talks are nudged to think about shorter versions - Strongly nudge people towards 20-minute talks, with repeats as the incentive for shorter talks and extra coordination/waiting needed for longer talks. People propose just the talk length they want (and can optionally propose other talk lengths if they want to be considered for them). - We added emergency contact info, public contact info, pronouns, and introduction to the submission form because we ended up going back and forth with people in previous years, and sometimes we had incomplete info and were panicking about how to reach people during the conference. We could drop this from the submission form and do a separate speaker information form. - Choices: - Talk submission, then speaker information form: less intimidating for speakers - Everything in one: easier for organizers ### Previous years - 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 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 ### Lessons learned for next year - Maybe incentivize proper timezone specification by saying we can translate times to their local time? - Make sure to include cfp.org as an attachment instead of inline ### Other thoughts - sachac: bandali likes having the commitment to freedom section in the CFP as a form of activism - sachac: I thought about pulling the deadline back to Sept 1, but it might be good to keep it at Sept 14 so that anyone who tends to work with the schoolyear can still have a little time to work on it. ## Distribute CFP ### DONE Add proposal review volunteers to emacsconf-submit - - Ask volunteers to e-mail an SSH public key so they can be added via the gitolite-admin repo to the conf.org repo for the year ### First announcement #### TODO Remove draft tags :sachac: #### TODO Post on emacsconf-discuss, emacs-tangents :bandali: #### TODO Sticky on reddit.com/r/emacs :zaeph: #### TODO Post in Emacs News :sachac: (link to wiki) ### Reminder ## Process submissions - Proposal received: sachac adds it to this document with status of PROPOSED - Fields: EMERGENCY, Q_AND_A, AVAILABILITY, NAME, PRONOUNS, TIME, MIN_TIME, MAX_TIME, SLUG, EMAIL, NAME_SHORT, CUSTOM_ID, TRACK, TIMEZONE, CATEGORY, DATE_SUBMITTED - jc doublechecks that the data has been correctly captured (especially EMAIL and AVAILABILITY) - People review it (sachac, jc, etc.) and weigh in - Proposal accepted: sachac e-mails the speaker and sets status to WAITING\_FOR\_EMAIL\_CONFIRM - E-mail confirmation received: log it in the logbook - Schedule set: sachac e-mails the speaker and sets status to WAITING\_FOR\_SCHED\_CONFIRM # Archive