Session proposals

[flyingzumwalt]

Gather proposals for sessions to put in Day 1 (plenary) or Day 2 (multi-track). Primarily gather these proposals from Working Groups and maintainers. This is separate from the Session Pitches for the Unconf on Day 3, though some stuff from this first round of proposals might get bumped to the unconf.

From those proposals we will select the sessions that can be pre-scheduled into Day 1 (plenary) or Day 2 (multi-track).

How should we collect these proposals? How should we solicit them from the community?

[flyingzumwalt]

From May 7th Meeting:

Planning content for day 2:

• Get people to propose sessions
• Organizers look at proposals, merge overlapping ones, identify patterns, set schedule
• Get them to work together to plan session structure, etc.
• How to get people to actually work on planning these sessions?
  • Possibly arrange a remote facilitation training with someone like gunner
  • Give guidance on how to use the time effectively
• Have people propose session(s) as part of the application process (ie. propose the session(s) on Github or sessionizer and then link to the proposal(s) from your application)
• Expected topics: data structures, versioning, IPLD, focusing on product + users, cluster, documentation

[hsanjuan]

cc @hsanjuan (I'll want to have a cluster session but I have to flesh out the topics in it)

[ghost]

Plan is to have session submissions submitted as Issues in this repo. @flyingzumwalt to create template and label.

[daviddias]

From #40, the todo list is:

• create a template for session proposals -- done for IPFS, still open for libp2p
• post instructions for proposing sessions -- done for IPFS, still open for libp2p
• send out emails to all attendees about how to propose sessions
• send separate email to working group captains and people with KRs encouraging them to propose sessions

[meiqimichelle]

A link to proposing sessions was sent out to everyone in our original 'save the date', but it was among a lot of other info. May want to send a more pointed email with instructions, suggestions, etc, and/or do personal outreach to if there are specific people we have in mind.

[ghost]

I'm going to do this for libp2p sessions. (libp2p sessions are slightly unique in that they are mandatory, but will be a mix of 3-5 lightning talks for some plus longer content talks like on the new QUIC work for high-interest topics.) There should be a parallel solicitation for IPFS sessions.

[daviddias]

I'm proposing two new session formats to meet some of the objectives we have for this event and also to hit things we really need. See it here - #43

[ghost]

Yes, I like your proposal in #43 a lot. I'm going to do a PR now to update libp2p/developer-meetings's readme to have three participation options: talk slots for stuff like QUIC (where I think there's high interest), poster teams, and protocol meetings (the last two as per your #43).

[daviddias]

@mgoelzer @flyingzumwalt has there been any instructions sent to all the attendees with regards to the instructions? I believe that the low level of engagement in the Session PRs is correlated with the lack of information or simply missing action items.

[ghost]

@diasdavid Let me know if you got my 6/27 email Proposing & leading a session at libp2p Dev Meeting? That was sent to everyone attending libp2p DM, but if you don't remember receiving it then either it wasn't memorable/clear enough or something went wrong.

The process for libp2p is slightly different, the sessions are issues on https://github.com/libp2p/developer-meetings and the README of that repo explains the possible formats (protocol design, poster creation, presentation).

Is the engagement on https://github.com/libp2p/developer-meetings/issues lower than what you'd expect at this point? Who could I reach out to for more ideas on topics? (esp for protocol design discussion; that one seems most fruitful)

[daviddias]

Is the engagement on https://github.com/libp2p/developer-meetings/issues lower than what you'd expect at this point?

Both IPFS and libp2p issues show low engagement atm. Note that we have 300+ active participants in our repos (given Github stats) and 70 of which will be attending. Right now we have less than 8 people interacting or have proposed a session. It is really low.