Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi Quim,
Could you provide a little more detail about what is required from session
proposers for the Nov. 28th deadline? It says "Deadline for consolidating a
discussion, regularly summarized in the proposal." But I'm not sure yet I'm
expected to do.
I see that a plurality of submissions are currently in the "missing active
discussion" lane on the Phab board. To me, that wording implies that unless
there is active discussion on the phab ticket, the proposal is unlikely to
be selected. Is that accurate? If so, what kind of discussion should I be
encouraging, as a session proposer, and how much discussion is enough?
Your question is totally fair. :) We are building this process as we go,
and your ideas and criticism are very important ingredients.
I have tried to explain reasons and expectations about this deadline at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit/2017/Call_for_par…
Additional questions and feedback about this deadline and the selection
process in general are welcome in the related Talk page:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Developer_Summit/2017/Call_fo…
It seems clear that I should be letting people know
about my session.
Should I encourage them to post a comment indicating their interest, or to
ask a question in the thread? Or is it enough if some people subscribe to
the task?
"Passive" demonstrations of interest like subscribing to the related
Phabricator task (or awarding tokens, a possibility that we have started to
discuss) are definitely useful to prove that someone is interested about
the topic beyond the person or small group proposing it.
However, active discussions are the sauce of the Summit. There is a lot of
competition for the pre-scheduled slots. We'd rather assign these slots to
the discussions that are already ongoing and will clearly benefit from,
say, well advertised 90 minutes in one room with video recording.
Theoretically relevant proposed topics relying on a discussion just
starting at the Summit are playing a gable. It might just work, but from
the Program committee perspective that is risky gamble to bet our (rather
expensive) space and participants' attention span.
--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil