[FOSS4G2016] [Program] Scheduled talks for plenary chamber

[Steven Feldman]

Fantastic work everyone involved. It is a tough job creating order out of chaos once the initial paper selection has been completed.

My advice would be to publish the timetable as soon as you can with a big message at the top saying “Provisional” or “Subject to change” and then send updates when the schedule goes final. The sooner the better, we want to get as many of our bookings in as early as possible before summer holidays really kick in. 

BTW we found it useful to circulate a registrations summary to the LOC at least once a week (more frequently in the last couple of weeks) - maybe you already do that and I am missing it?

May the FOSS be with you
______
Steven


> On 31 May 2016, at 00:29, Marc Vloemans <marcvloemans1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Nice work guys!
> 
> My suggestion: publish the preliminary/intermediate program, with the explicit comment that we continue working on the 'smaller' details.
> This way we actually have something to communicate asap (summer holiday is approaching rapidly) while we can send news flashes when things change. This will continue to draw interest over the upcoming months.
> 
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
> 
>>> Op 30 mei 2016 om 14:09 heeft Volker Mische <volker.mische at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> On 05/30/2016 01:49 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Volker Mische <volker.mische at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Johan,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for taking the time to have a look. As explained in a previous
>>>> mail, I already grouped things into slots of 3 (sometimes 2). Given the
>>>> scheduling should happen ASAP, I dare to keep what I have (as there also
>>>> weren't any comments from others).
>>>> 
>>>> This is really a matter of time, that I really need to get it done.
>>>> 
>>>> We'll publish a primarily schedule first. I'd also expect that some
>>>> people can't make it. Hence perhaps we can take the time later on
>>>> (around beginning of July) when we create the final schedule, perhaps we
>>>> can then change a few bits if we have the full overview. Does that sound
>>>> like a plan? :)
>>> 
>>> Volker,
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should rush to publish, publishing a temporary
>>> schedule first and then changing a lot seems an even worst idea.
>>> 
>>> I am willing to regroup the other sessions this week should we go for
>>> my scenario (or an adapted version).
>>> It may also be helpful to know which keynoters are there. Eg if HOT
>>> does not have a keynote, I think they should be in the plenary track
>>> (I'd suggest instead of one of the QGis talks).
>> 
>> Hi Johan,
>> 
>> we are in a rush :) The reason is that more people register when there's
>> a schedule.
>> 
>> Though I'm surely open for changing things. The question is what the
>> best way of doing this would be, so it wouldn't be much to change it in
>> the system, once we agreed on it.
>> 
>> It would also be good to know what others think.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Volker
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
> _______________________________________________
> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016