30 01 2013 Minutes

Speakers

• Mails sent : no news yet
• Koichi doesn't speak english (just a note).

Tasks :

• @rizopoulos will bcc the committee from now on. Continue with mail sending.

Sponsors

• @gfotos : the pdf is OK today. We should upload it.

Tasks :

• @gfotos : upload pdf

Tickets

• @pagojo asked rubyorgs how to allocate the tickets to the communities. Waiting for answers. Started light promo on some channels.

Tasks :

• Pending : @vvatikiotis to ask about how to handle ticket invoices

Accountant

• Make a team for a meeting with the accountant.

Networking

• @panos went to Vodafone. They want a written statement. Until the end of the week he will give them something. They will go to BT. They will get us in touch with the subcontractors.
• Vodafone might want to be a sponsor.

Tasks :

• @panos write a letter of introduction. After that, if Vofafone accepts, we go to BT and evaluate and estimate the cost

CFP

• @pagojo : the committee should have a certain weight to the final decision. Only the ticket holders should vote. Anonymous up until to the point where the voting starts.
• @apantsiop : would like anonymous, with all the community voting.
• @chief : the CFP should be free for the speakers. Should be free for the voters (not only ticket holders), it shows arrogance if it isn't free. It should be an eponymous voting. No intervention from us. We will only make the tools and procedure. Only a veto (extreme situations). Only github account signins for the tool. And the speakers should submit the paper without comments and forms.
• @nikosd : even something simple would do. He wants a conversation about the CFPs (he sees that as an oportunity). He wants to ask Manor Ruby about their tool. 1) CFP open, 2) proposals (anonymous), 3) submission end date, 4) voting not only for ticket holders (maybe give extra weight to those who have tickets, (he believes this way creates buzz). The screening should be applied to everybody (basic stuff only i.e. simple verification).
• @nolamesa : concerns about anonymous technical issues (time limit). He is for eponymous voting. He doesn't want two stages (anonymous, eponymous). No screening.
• @vvatikiotis : the community votes (weighted or not). Screening if they can deliver the preso. Ideally anonymous but he doesn't care.
• @gfotos : eponymous submission. anonymous voting. about the screening : he is for it using only common sense. Only intervene if something gets out of hand. Community votes (from various soc. networks, weighted if possible). He believes that the discussion/comments could be abused (e.g. trolls could make presenters withdraw submissions, OTOH presentations could mature through the process).
• @pxinos : he is for eponymous voting. no screening, only if they don't have video. (through video). he would like the voters to see the videos. no comments. Just use hashtags (and let them follow the thread from there). Votes only on valid emails (weighted).

Tasks :

• @rizopoulos : will polish the draft and we will discess it and vote again