Re: [Xen-devel] [Seeking input] Format of Xen Project Developer Summit in October

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

> OTOH, if there's a talk in room A and (even if just potentially), 10
> BoFs in room B (it was like this at the Hackathon), then it looks like a
> way less fair competition to me. :-/

I was thinking of ONE BoF in the other room

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On ven, 2013-08-09 at 14:17 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > Wouldn't that raise fairness issues regarding which talks are
> scheduled
> > to happen in parallel with the BoF sessions, as compared to the ones
> > that are not?
> I am not convinced it would.
>

Fair enough. :-) BTW, there might be a quite fundamental
misunderstanding here. Are you talking about _one_ BoF discussion at a
time in the "other room" --as you say below-- or _several_ of them at
the same time, still in the "other room", involving different group of
people --as it was at the Hackathon?

It might sound subtle, and it probably is, but I think it does make a
difference (see below).

> If there was one BoF discussion going on in parallel to the track in
> the afternoon, I wouldn't expect that more than a dozen or so people
> would come to a specific discussion.
>

Yes, I think that too.

> It'll create a degree of competition with the main program, but that
> would exist also if we had two tracks.
>

Well, it is indeed the same  as having two tracks if we have, at any
given time, *1* thing going on in room A (e.g., main talks track) and
*1* thing going on in room B (e.g., one specific BoF/hacking session).
In this case, I agree with you, and most of my concerns would just
disappear.

OTOH, if there's a talk in room A and (even if just potentially), 10
BoFs in room B (it was like this at the Hackathon), then it looks like a
way less fair competition to me. :-/

So, sorry if it's my fault not understanding this from the beginning,
which one are we talking about?

> The alternative is to just set up the second room as hacker space and
> as a space for "in-corridor" meetings and have no tool to schedule.
>

Well, sure, you can't force people to stay in a room listening to a
talk, if the talk it's not interesting for them, and any attempt to do
that will fail miserably, I concur with that, and I'm not asking for
anything like this! :-P

Nevertheless, having visited quite some conferences during the past
ages, I think the format is important (as this thread testifies), and I
think we at least should be really careful in making it clear how it
will be like, especially when we ask people to submit their talks and
come to Scotland to give the presentation, if accepted.

Regards,
Dario

--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)