Re: Minutes 2016-02-24

On 25 February 2016 at 13:34, Ekaterina Gerasimova
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 February 2016 at 13:07, Benjamin Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Do, 2016-02-25 at 12:47 +0100, Tobias Mueller wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:18:53AM +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote:
>>> >
>>> >   * AGREED: regcfp will be our software for registration and CfP unless
>>> > this should be revisited for good reasons next week
>>> As for the CfP system:
>>> Do we know from the VoCCC how much a frab would make their and our lives
>>> easier?  Or do they expect it even?
>>>
>>> From what I can see from all the other CCC events the integration of the
>>> list of talks with the video page is reasonably good. So you can see the
>>> video from the talk in the schedule and vice versa.
>>
>> This simply requires an XML export of the schedule in the defined
>> format.
>>
>> https://c3voc.de/schedulexml
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/voc/schedule/master/validator/xsd/schedule.xml.xsd
>>
>> Looks pretty straight forward. Basically defines the conference, each
>> day, then the rooms and in there each talk.
>>
>>> I've seen it working for events ranging from a handful of talks (FifFkon),
>>> to a few dozen (mrmcd), up to a few hundred (FOSDEM, CCCongress).
>>> My feeling is that frab is pretty much the standard nowadays.
>>> The main feature I see is that it exports static HTML which is good
>>> for security and archival purposes.
>>> That alone makes me suggest to use Frab in the future for collecting
>>> submissions and managing the schedule.
>>
>> The advantages of regcfp:
>>  * Seems to work well for us (i.e. paper team, registration/badges)
>>  * People already know the system
>>  * We have the author supporting it for us
>>
>> I don't want to block a move to something else. However, I don't really
>> see schedule archives as a big enough reason to move considering we
>> would need someone to:
>>  * figure everything out (badges, cfp, schedule, registration, payment)
>>  * evaluate which solution is really better
>>  * set it up on our servers
>>  * be dedicated to maintain it in the runup to the conference
>>    (and that should really be a non-core team person)
>
> From the papers committee point of view, the system needs to:
> * allow voting and do light processing on the results
> * allow a non-voter to see results and who or how many people have
> voted per paper, but not the votes
> * send automated mail to accepted/rejected papers
> * support having more than one speaker
>
>> And that has to happen before we open the CfP …

That reminds me, I want to open the call for papers in the first few
weeks of March, so we're waiting on the dates announcement.

>> Benjamin
>> _______________________________________________
>> guadec-organization mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-organization
>>
_______________________________________________
guadec-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list