clint at ubuntu.com
Fri Dec 3 17:03:26 GMT 2010
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:00 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jono Bacon wrote:
> > These areas are:
> > * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at
> > the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks
> > think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and
> > instead just have 'tags' for sessions (e.g. you add a session
> > and tag it from a limited set of tags). Do you think this would
> > be a better approach?
+1 from me on tags, sounds like a great idea!
> I like the idea of tagging. With products (server, desktop...), themes
> (community, cloud...) and horizontal subjects (security, qa...), that
> could definitely help people find sessions that are interesting to them.
> Tracks were useful to somehow neatly split the effort of scheduling
> between track leads. It might not be as easy to schedule with tagged
I actually think it would be easier to schedule with tags, as you have
more clues as to what people are coming to UDS to discuss. Right now if
I understand the process correctly, the only basis for the automatic
* Tracks never stay in the same room for two consecutive sessions
* Participation Essential people should have just one session per time
There are still conflicts, and they have to be manually resolved.
However, with tags you can look at what tags have the most participation
essential and isolation from the other tags (isolation from another tag
meaning a tag has less people that have chosen to be participation
essential in both tags), and those become the tracks. Anything thats not
in one of those tags gets put in the "Other" track. Meanwhile users can
pick tags they're interested in and have those added to their schedule
during slots where they're not "Participation essential" anywhere.
One small challenge would be that the naming scheme of blueprints now
must drop the track in the beginning (or add it after UDS?) and rely on
the tags for grouping.
More information about the ubuntu-devel