Martijn Faassen
2014-04-15 13:04:50 UTC
Hi there,
I thought I'd give my preferences for conference length in the future.
It's just my point of view, but I had it for a while now, and I figure
I'd better share it to be more constructive.
For some years, EuroPython was 3 days of conference, with perhaps 3 or 4
parallel tracks with talks. From what I recall from the early days, we
got about as many talk submissions as we had talk slots available.
At some point a few training days got tacked on to the beginning. We
also gained a tradition of sprints before or after the conference, later
on getting established at the end, where I think they should be. I
myself greatly enjoy sprints as an opportunity to get to know people
better and work with them.
In the last few years EuroPython grew to a conference with many more
parallel tracks, and more days of conference proper. 5 or so. And then
sprints.
I haven't been to EuroPython for a few years for other reasons. But when
I peeked at the massive and long schedule I did feel rather intimidated.
It feels a bit too much like a marathon to me. I prefer my conference to
be shorter. I also feel such a long conference risks diluting the talks
anyone finds interesting over a longer period, making the whole
experience less inspiring. And while I enjoy the hallway track, I prefer
doing sprints.
I take it the training sessions got spread into the main conference and
that's why it's longer. But I wonder whether the ballooning schedule is
also because the amount of talk submissions went up, and following the
pattern of accepting as many submitted talks as possible like we used to
have, the conference felt it had to grow to more days and more slots
too. If this is so, I think we should consider whether this is the right
response to more talk submissions, or whether a better response is to
simply reject more talks.
I think this relates to the discussion on diversity of talks. On the
preliminary schedule, quite a few speakers have two accepted talks, or
even three. For a more inspiring conference, I'd prefer to see more
different speakers, more viewpoints, not the same speaker multiple
times, however good they may be, and however interesting the topic.
Perhaps an exception can be made if a particular category of
submissions, like trainings, don't get enough submissions otherwise, but
if submissions > talk slots, I think 1 accepted talk per speaker is a
good idea. To avoid people gaming the system to increase their chances
they're accepted, perhaps 1 *submitted* talk per speaker would be a good
idea too.
For even more diversity of topics, throw in more wild card talks too
that are only peripheral to Python, and not just for the keynote
speeches. To me that's more inspiring. (I haven't studied the schedule
in detail yet though, so it's possible they're there)
I was told by @europython on Twitter I wasn't required to show up for 5
days of talks. I can make my own, shorter conference. So do I cut off
the beginning or the end? I'd prefer the sprints, so I guess I should
show up in day 3? What if a talk I submitted gets scheduled to day 2,
though? Or if I actually prefer seeing the talks on day 1 and 2? Now I
have to make those difficult choices myself.
Nobody has to care about what I want of course if it's just me. But
perhaps I'm not the only one. And maybe bits of my analysis make sense
to others. Nobody will find out if nobody talks about it, so that's why
I did here.
Thanks for doing all the hard work in organizing this; I know it's not easy.
Regards,
Martijn
I thought I'd give my preferences for conference length in the future.
It's just my point of view, but I had it for a while now, and I figure
I'd better share it to be more constructive.
For some years, EuroPython was 3 days of conference, with perhaps 3 or 4
parallel tracks with talks. From what I recall from the early days, we
got about as many talk submissions as we had talk slots available.
At some point a few training days got tacked on to the beginning. We
also gained a tradition of sprints before or after the conference, later
on getting established at the end, where I think they should be. I
myself greatly enjoy sprints as an opportunity to get to know people
better and work with them.
In the last few years EuroPython grew to a conference with many more
parallel tracks, and more days of conference proper. 5 or so. And then
sprints.
I haven't been to EuroPython for a few years for other reasons. But when
I peeked at the massive and long schedule I did feel rather intimidated.
It feels a bit too much like a marathon to me. I prefer my conference to
be shorter. I also feel such a long conference risks diluting the talks
anyone finds interesting over a longer period, making the whole
experience less inspiring. And while I enjoy the hallway track, I prefer
doing sprints.
I take it the training sessions got spread into the main conference and
that's why it's longer. But I wonder whether the ballooning schedule is
also because the amount of talk submissions went up, and following the
pattern of accepting as many submitted talks as possible like we used to
have, the conference felt it had to grow to more days and more slots
too. If this is so, I think we should consider whether this is the right
response to more talk submissions, or whether a better response is to
simply reject more talks.
I think this relates to the discussion on diversity of talks. On the
preliminary schedule, quite a few speakers have two accepted talks, or
even three. For a more inspiring conference, I'd prefer to see more
different speakers, more viewpoints, not the same speaker multiple
times, however good they may be, and however interesting the topic.
Perhaps an exception can be made if a particular category of
submissions, like trainings, don't get enough submissions otherwise, but
if submissions > talk slots, I think 1 accepted talk per speaker is a
good idea. To avoid people gaming the system to increase their chances
they're accepted, perhaps 1 *submitted* talk per speaker would be a good
idea too.
For even more diversity of topics, throw in more wild card talks too
that are only peripheral to Python, and not just for the keynote
speeches. To me that's more inspiring. (I haven't studied the schedule
in detail yet though, so it's possible they're there)
I was told by @europython on Twitter I wasn't required to show up for 5
days of talks. I can make my own, shorter conference. So do I cut off
the beginning or the end? I'd prefer the sprints, so I guess I should
show up in day 3? What if a talk I submitted gets scheduled to day 2,
though? Or if I actually prefer seeing the talks on day 1 and 2? Now I
have to make those difficult choices myself.
Nobody has to care about what I want of course if it's just me. But
perhaps I'm not the only one. And maybe bits of my analysis make sense
to others. Nobody will find out if nobody talks about it, so that's why
I did here.
Thanks for doing all the hard work in organizing this; I know it's not easy.
Regards,
Martijn