[FOSS4G-Oceania] Lightning Talks Proposal (and Georabble)

[Andrew Harvey]

I think we should keep lightning talks as part of the day program, and
leave a potential GeoRabble as something seperate.
This way we can fit more in, have control on what's included and include
talks that won't meet the GeoRabble requirements. (GeoRabble is meant to
be vendor neutral and that includes open source vendors)

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, at 8:13 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Lightning talks follow a very similar formula to Georable talks, and
> I'd suggest we discuss these together.> 
>  We've mentioned that we might set up a Georabble night, and maybe
>  combine it with delegates from the ESRI day.>  Has anyone reached out to the Georabble community in Melbourne yet?
>  Do we have a contact for such a person (maybe they are on this list
>  already?) Maybe we could invite the Georabble community to organise
>  lightning talks and georabble talks together?> 
>  On 13/6/18 7:17 am, Alex Leith wrote:
>> Ok, sounds like they're in the call for papers. 
>> 
>> I'll ask Cholena to add another field to the form.
>> 
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 05:56 John Bryant
>> <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:>>> +1 for lightning talks.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1 for putting them in the program/call for papers, and filling them
>>> up on the day if required.>>> 
>>> While it *might* be a bit simpler right now to leave them out of the
>>> call for papers, I feel it adds one more thing to organise on the
>>> run during the conference, and I suspect we will have plenty to do.>>> 
> On 12/6/18 1:14 am, Greg Lauer wrote:
>> I am in agreement with Adams comments below 
>> 
>> On 10 Jun 2018, at 19:05, adam steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:>> 
>>> +1 to lightning talks, and Andrew brings up a new motion: 
>>> 
>>> => put lighting talks in the program (and hence call for papers),
>>> => with any spare slots to be filled on the day.>>> 
>>> +1 from me, noting impact it will have on general track program
>>> management...> 
> On 11/6/18 11:39 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> +1 on lightning talks. 
>> 
>> I'd prefer to see these included in the program, even though they are
>> only 5 minutes, speakers would still need to prepare, so I they might
>> run better if committed to prior to the conference. Good for speakers
>> since they know they'll get a spot or not.>> 
>> Still fine to allow some time for any last minute additions if
>> there's space.>> 
>> On 10 June 2018 at 09:52, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All 
>>> 
>>> I wanted to put past you my thoughts around lightning talks.
>>> 
>>> What I suggest we do is the following:
>>>  * Set aside a stream in the afternoon on the first day for
>>>    lightning talks
>>>  * Set up a board somewhere prominent where people put their names
>>>    up to present a lightning talk (5 minutes max)
>>>  * There's a limit to the number of talks, probably 12 so that it
>>>    fits in the session lenght
>>>  * That session is hopefully dynamic and fun and just a little bit
>>>    chaotic!>>> 
>>> I'd be happy to moderate the lightning talks. I think it will
>>> provide something interesting and different.>>> 
>>> The alternate is to include them in the CfP, but I think it better
>>> to keep that simple.>>> 
>>> I'm very interested in your views!
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Alex Leith
>>> 0419 189 050
>>> 
>> 
>
> -- Cameron Shorter Technology Demystifier Open Technologies and
> Geospatial Consultant  M +61 (0) 419 142 254> _________________________________________________
> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/attachments/20180613/c0be9f86/attachment.html>