Re: conference software

Hi.

On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 19:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Tobias Mueller <[email protected]
> e> wrote:
> As far as I know, the schedule format was defined by Pentabarf and
> nowadays many other applications implement it
Including OSEM? ;-)

> There are a few alternatives on the market and we could bikeshed for a
> while without reaching an agreement. I investigated OSEM and it does
> what we need, looks good and easy to use. It fits our requirements and
> the developers are listening to user feedback. I heartily recommend
> switching to it.
> 
I consider this good reasoning.
FWIW: I didn't intend to recommend one software or advise against
another. But rather refute statements that I believe are wrong in order
to help making a better decision.  I assumed that was one of the things
the original message intended to provoke.

You seem to be all set, but if you're looking for suggestions as to what
features your software should have, I recommend ranking a static export
high on your list of things to look out for. Not only will it make
deployment much easier, but it will also make archiving the whole thing
very easy.

> > > Secondly, GNOME.Asia has already used OSEM for the past couple of
> > > years.
> > wait, what?  This is plain wrong.
> 
> How so?
Because GNOME.Asia Summit didn't use OSEM for the last couple of years.

Cheers,
  Tobi