On 2016-08-10 02:48 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
There are key difference from having a topic interest group hold a session to talk informally among themselves, and the way that the critical discussions are done.
I'm honestly not sure I see the difference, but I'm happy to accommodate what is perceived to be a need by the community.
None of current proportion of presentation vs workshops vs etc. is set in stone: they will be adjusted according to the respective number of submissions, inter alia. I'm more than happy to include "discussions" explicitly in the CFP if the need is felt.
But just to make this clear: BoF sessions are no more nor less formal than any other session, and are first class citizens of the programme. The only thing "informal" about them is that there is no committee selection process: so long as it is on-topic, it will be welcome. (If there are more requests than we are able to accommodate[1], slots will be allocated on the basis of expected audience with any overflow invited to use the unconference spaces).
-- Marc