-
Hey all, I've been thinking a bit about how talks are scheduled, and I'm thinking that votes are not really the right mechanism. For one thing, no talk has ever had more than about 4 votes, which I suspect means that people don't vote (as opposed to actually not wanting to hear those talks). For another, do we seriously plan to turn down talks? So, I'm proposing a new mechanism for getting your talk scheduled. Basically it's a less technological version of what I talked about in my blog post a while back: http://www.openplans.org/projects/operations/blog/2008/05/14/more-linkage-brain-dump/ The short version: If you want to give a talk, post on the wiki and give an estimate of how long you need to get your talk together. I'll give you at least as much notice as you request before scheduling your talk. Any thoughts? -David PS: Anyone want to give a talk in the next week or two? The wiki's running dry but I am pretty sure some people have indicated interest in giving talks that aren't listed there.
- Thread Outline:
-
- Re: Scheduling? by rpenate
-
Re: Scheduling?
by
magicbronson
-
Re: Scheduling?
by
cdwinslow
- Re: Scheduling? by "Sebastian Benthall" <sbenthall@...>
-
Re: Scheduling?
by
cdwinslow
-
I would also add that the talks seem to be scheduled in a boom-bust manner: lots of talks in a short condensed period of time, then general stagnation for a period. Perhaps having designated talk days— every other Thursday, for example—and then just popping talks into those slots as appropriate would make it more regular, predictable, and maintain a constant level of engagement. —R On May 21, 2008, at 10:27 AM, David Winslow wrote: > Hey all, > > I've been thinking a bit about how talks are scheduled, and I'm > thinking that votes are not really the right mechanism. For one > thing, no talk has ever had more than about 4 votes, which I suspect > means that people don't vote (as opposed to actually not wanting to > hear those talks). For another, do we seriously plan to turn down > talks? > > So, I'm proposing a new mechanism for getting your talk scheduled. > Basically it's a less technological version of what I talked about > in my blog post a while back: http://www.openplans.org/projects/operations/blog/2008/05/14/more-linkage-brain-dump/ > > The short version: If you want to give a talk, post on the wiki and > give an estimate of how long you need to get your talk together. > I'll give you at least as much notice as you request before > scheduling your talk. > > Any thoughts? > > -David > > PS: Anyone want to give a talk in the next week or two? The wiki's > running dry but I am pretty sure some people have indicated interest > in giving talks that aren't listed there. > > > -- > Archive: http://www.openplans.org/projects/topp-talks/lists/topp-talks-discussion/archive/2008/05/1211380045173 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to topp-talks-discussion@... > . Please contact topp-talks-discussion-manager@... > for questions. > > > !DSPAM:4026,483431b6166594901796417! >
-
This is a goal I've been trying for, however Doug has been repeatedly rescheduling and I didn't have the foresight (or the talks queued) for a backup. -d Rolando Penate wrote: > I would also add that the talks seem to be scheduled in a boom-bust > manner: lots of talks in a short condensed period of time, then > general stagnation for a period. Perhaps having designated talk > days—every other Thursday, for example—and then just popping talks > into those slots as appropriate would make it more regular, > predictable, and maintain a constant level of engagement. > > —R > > On May 21, 2008, at 10:27 AM, David Winslow wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I've been thinking a bit about how talks are scheduled, and I'm >> thinking that votes are not really the right mechanism. For one >> thing, no talk has ever had more than about 4 votes, which I suspect >> means that people don't vote (as opposed to actually not wanting to >> hear those talks). For another, do we seriously plan to turn down >> talks? >> >> So, I'm proposing a new mechanism for getting your talk scheduled. >> Basically it's a less technological version of what I talked about in >> my blog post a while back: >> http://www.openplans.org/projects/operations/blog/2008/05/14/more-linkage-brain-dump/ >> >> >> The short version: If you want to give a talk, post on the wiki and >> give an estimate of how long you need to get your talk together. >> I'll give you at least as much notice as you request before >> scheduling your talk. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> -David >> >> PS: Anyone want to give a talk in the next week or two? The wiki's >> running dry but I am pretty sure some people have indicated interest >> in giving talks that aren't listed there. >> >> >> -- >> Archive: >> http://www.openplans.org/projects/topp-talks/lists/topp-talks-discussion/archive/2008/05/1211380045173 >> >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to >> topp-talks-discussion@.... Please contact >> topp-talks-discussion-manager@... for questions. >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Archive: > http://www.openplans.org/projects/topp-talks/lists/topp-talks-discussion/archive/2008/05/1211380962968 > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to > topp-talks-discussion@.... Please contact > topp-talks-discussion-manager@... for questions. > > > !DSPAM:4040,48343532176598362916074! >
-
-
Hey Dave, On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:27 AM, David Winslow <dwinslow@...> wrote: > > The short version: If you want to give a talk, post on the wiki and give an > estimate of how long you need to get your talk together. I'll give you at > least as much notice as you request before scheduling your talk. > > Any thoughts? > +1! PS: Anyone want to give a talk in the next week or two? I would love to. I noticed we're still down on the wiki for a joint "intro to computation" talk. Looking at the wiki page for that talk, it looks like the ideas outlined there were pretty much covered in your "programming basics" talk. I was actually thinking of talking more about computational theory stuff than programming, but I'd like to read the Sipser book before I pretend to be any sort of authority on the subject... Have you read it (or something similar)? Would you still be interested in joining forces on this talk? Either way, I'll change the timeline on it to something a little later than 2 weeks, if that sounds okay to you. I also just noticed Mike's talk on music theory, which I would love to get in on. I've emailed him separately to see if he's interested in collaborating. My last idea was to give a talk on Linear Programming after the fun I had learning and using glpk. I'm not going to put it on the wiki yet because I want to wait until things calm down a little for me at home, but I'll keep you/the wiki posted. Thanks for being such an awesome facilitator of these talks. Josh
-
Joshua Bronson wrote: > Hey Dave, > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:27 AM, David Winslow > <dwinslow@... <mailto:dwinslow@...>> wrote: > > The short version: If you want to give a talk, post on the wiki > and give an estimate of how long you need to get your talk > together. I'll give you at least as much notice as you request > before scheduling your talk. > > Any thoughts? > > > +1! > > PS: Anyone want to give a talk in the next week or two? > > > I would love to. I noticed we're still down on the wiki for a joint > "intro to computation" talk. Looking at the wiki page for that talk, > it looks like the ideas outlined there were pretty much covered in > your "programming basics" talk. I was actually thinking of talking > more about computational theory stuff than programming, but I'd like > to read the Sipser book before I pretend to be any sort of authority > on the subject... Have you read it (or something similar)? Would you > still be interested in joining forces on this talk? Either way, I'll > change the timeline on it to something a little later than 2 weeks, if > that sounds okay to you. Yeah, I realized that your idea of "an intro to what developers do" and mine were pretty divergent, which is why my "programming basics talk" is a separate page from the "intro to computation" one. Please feel free to rip it up and start from scratch (maybe take notes on the wiki while you're reading through the Sipser book?) My knowledge re: computational theory is all derived from classes I took a couple of years ago so a refresher would probably be in order. I hear the Sipser book is well worth reading anyway; I'd love to go through it once before the talk even if I weren't helping you put it together (which I am). I guess that "2 weeks" on the wiki is a little overambitious. > I also just noticed Mike's talk on music theory, which I would love to > get in on. I've emailed him separately to see if he's interested in > collaborating. > > My last idea was to give a talk on Linear Programming after the fun I > had learning and using glpk. I'm not going to put it on the wiki yet > because I want to wait until things calm down a little for me at home, > but I'll keep you/the wiki posted. The wiki has a better memory than I do ;) > > Thanks for being such an awesome facilitator of these talks. > > Josh > !DSPAM:4040,483c83f3223591628642973!
-
> > My knowledge re: computational theory is all derived from classes I took a > couple of years ago so a refresher would probably be in order. I hear the > Sipser book is well worth reading anyway; I'd love to go through it once > before the talk even if I weren't helping you put it together (which I am). > I guess that "2 weeks" on the wiki is a little overambitious. Sipser can be found in my personal library/"friend", to the right of my monitor. (My right). You are both welcome to it, but please return it. Occasionally I go into a kind of trance where I feverishly try to prove that P != NP, and not having Sipser at hand makes those times very difficult.
-
-
-
TOPP Talks discussion
text.html (text/html) 2.0 kB