On 06/12/2021 12:03, Alexander Todorov wrote:

On 12/6/21 11:41 AM, Konstantin Osipov wrote:

...

Hi,

Year over year I am watching the procedure for compiling the final list of devrooms and each year I am surprised.

I know each year there are a lot of devroom submissions and a lot of competition. But how is the final list compiled? It would be nice if this process is more open with the community.

I can see there is a devroom for Ada and Dart but no devroom for Rust or C++. There is a devroom for MySQL and MariaDB and no devroom for *all* NoSQL systems combined. Are there no free nosql databases?  Were there no devroom submissions for Rust or other emerging programming languages?

+1

I am missing the CI/CD devroom and Testing and Automation devroom which have been part of FOSDEM for the last fgew years and I'd like to know why they weren't accepted, especially given that FOSDEM 2022 will be online.

Disclaimer: I am a co-host of the T&A devroom.

I've been a co-organizer of the telephony and RTC dev-rooms for many years. One of the FOSDEM organizers alerted me to the fact that people who accept money from Google are sending emails asking FOSDEM to discredit me. Here are the words: "By the way, several people keep contacting us about the use of 'Debian Developer' in your biography which they want us to change - but it's your text, not ours, and they don't say that they actually asked you first! But if it's true that you're not officially one under their preferred definition, would you update it? (The minimal change might be to replace the capital Ds with lower case ds.)" All my Debian work is fully compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), why should I change my profile? These emails are a cruel insult. This year, I notice that emails sent to the FOSDEM mailing list do not appear immediately, they go through some sort of moderation/censorship process now. Some of the CFP emails this year only appear more than 24 hours after being sent. Google sacked Timnit Gebru from their ethics department because she wanted to write the truth. A few weeks ago I sent an email here about Academic Liberty. Immediately after that email, the bad elements of Debian, the Google apologists started publishing personal defamation against me in multiple languages, in English, French and Spanish and maybe others. I do not want to add to the conspiracy theories. I feel that having transparent processes can help to trivialize the conspiracies. Ideally, the FOSDEM organizers would explain their processes and criteria before the application period begins. Regards, Daniel -- Debian Developer https://danielpocock.com

On 06/12/2021 20:58, Claus R. Wickinghoff wrote:

Hi Daniel,

first of all: I'm not gonna judge you in any way.

...

One of the FOSDEM organizers alerted me to the fact that people who accept money from Google are sending emails asking FOSDEM to discredit me.  Here are the words:

This was announced by the Debian project in November:

https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117

The closing date for FOSDEM dev-rooms was 15 November The defamation appeared on 17 November I'm not going to judge the Google apologists scripting the defamation while FOSDEM were evaluating the rooms. I'm sure it is just coincidence.

* Johan Van de Wauw <johanvdw@fosdem.org> [21/12/06 22:42]:

...

Year over year I am watching the procedure for compiling the final list of devrooms and each year I am surprised.

I know each year there are a lot of devroom submissions and a lot of competition. But how is the final list compiled? It would be nice if this process is more open with the community.

I can see there is a devroom for Ada and Dart but no devroom for Rust or C++. There is a devroom for MySQL and MariaDB and no devroom for *all* NoSQL systems combined. Are there no free nosql databases? Were there no devroom submissions for Rust or other emerging programming languages?

We have not received devroom proposals for any of these topics (C++, Rust, NoSQL) this year.

Note that you are more than welcome to submit any talks which are not covered by a devroom to the main tracks and or lightning talks.

This doesn't clarify how the selection is made, especially now when the rooms are virtual, so there's no venue limit and we could have more rooms. Wouldn't it make more sense to: - accept and publish all room submissions, - encourage room submissions from many, so each room is organized by 3-5 submitters, which naturally form the room programme committee? - run a public poll and create a shortlist? If there is a published procedure serving the same purpose, where can one read about it? I withstood from submitting a room proposal because I expected the topics I'm interested in (nosql databases, distributed systems, rust) to be super popular and submitted many times over. Thanks, -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:41:39PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:

* Johan Van de Wauw <johanvdw@fosdem.org> [21/12/06 22:42]:

...

...

Year over year I am watching the procedure for compiling the final list of devrooms and each year I am surprised.

I know each year there are a lot of devroom submissions and a lot of competition. But how is the final list compiled? It would be nice if this process is more open with the community.

I can see there is a devroom for Ada and Dart but no devroom for Rust or C++. There is a devroom for MySQL and MariaDB and no devroom for *all* NoSQL systems combined. Are there no free nosql databases? Were there no devroom submissions for Rust or other emerging programming languages?

We have not received devroom proposals for any of these topics (C++, Rust, NoSQL) this year.

Note that you are more than welcome to submit any talks which are not covered by a devroom to the main tracks and or lightning talks.

This doesn't clarify how the selection is made, especially now when the rooms are virtual, so there's no venue limit and we could have more rooms.

This is not actually correct. It's true that without a physical conference the hard limit imposed by the number of physical rooms that we have available is gone, but that does not mean there is no limit to what we can do. More devrooms means more required resources (jitsi servers, matrix rooms, transcoding infra, etc) and more work for the FOSDEM team in supporting everything, to make sure things keep running smoothly. While we can definitely have more rooms (and we do have more rooms as compared to a physical FOSDEM!), to say that there is "no limit" is inaccurate.

Wouldn't it make more sense to:

- accept and publish all room submissions,

No. We reserve the right to refuse devrooms when we deem it necessary (e.g., for reasons explained above, or for legal reasons should that be necessary).

- encourage room submissions from many, so each room is organized by 3-5 submitters, which naturally form the room programme committee?

This is already done (well, we require 2 people, but more is always better).

- run a public poll and create a shortlist?

I'm not sure what that is meant to accomplish. Can you clarify?

If there is a published procedure serving the same purpose, where can one read about it?

There is no published procedure. The devrooms team looks at the incoming devroom proposals and makes a selection based on limitations provided to them by other teams in the FOSDEM team, and editorial decisions over devroom subjects that are their responsibility to make.

I withstood from submitting a room proposal because I expected the topics I'm interested in (nosql databases, distributed systems, rust) to be super popular and submitted many times over.

If that happens, the devrooms team will be happy to put you in contact with the other people who submitted a devroom proposal for the same (or a similar) proposal -- this has happened in the past. I suggest you just go ahead next year and do make a proposal for the subjects you think are important; or you can ask within your community if someone is interested in proposing a devroom. Meanwhile, I'm afraid the deadline has now obviously passed, so it'll be for next year. -- w@uter.{be,co.za} wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}