Walter Bright Wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> > I know.  How many months has bug 314* had the most votes?  And 313 while we're at it.  Importing has been broken for years and instead D2 is getting thread-local variables.  It seems like a gross misdirection of effort.
> 
> 314 does not affect correct code, hence is an implicitly less important issue.
> 
> The order of importance of bugs is roughly:
> 
> 1. silently generating bad code
> 2. compiler crashes
> 3. regressions that break previously working code
> 4. not accepting valid code
> 5. accepting invalid code
> 6. poor error messages

IMHO opponion, these should exactly match the severity categories in bugzilla.

> Throw into that how much work a bug is to fix, how many projects it affects, if there's a patch submitted, etc.

If open bugs were marked with a difficulty level, that may reduce the barrier to entry for would-be hackers of the dmd source.

I've been thinking lately that D needs a "help wanted" page that lists broad categories for contribution and instructions on getting started. The list posted in the promoting D thread seemed like a great start.

I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions , phone calls, e-mail etc.

Jason House wrote:
> I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
> ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
> talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
> official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
> Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
> all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
> up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
> concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
> also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
> Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
> , phone calls, e-mail etc.

I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.

Yes!  (Since I'm now living a lot closer than I used to be... :-)

Depending on the timing, I could probably do a talk on something. Maybe the as-yet-nonexistent automatic differentiation in D, heh.

--bb

On Tue, 12 May 2009, Walter Bright wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
> > I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions , phone calls, e-mail etc.
> 
> I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.

I'm pretty sure I could offer the space again (I'd need to reserve the rooms far in advance).  Offering my time to schedule and gather speakers and people is what caused the last attempt to fizzle.  I'd be happy to setup the same signup page (and even enhance it if there's desires for it to do more) again.  Really, getting speakers committed and organized is the largest part of the work other than the actual event itself.

If there's sufficient interest, and a range of dates chosen, I'll be glad to go see what I can arrange with our conferencing guys.

Later,
Brad

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Jason House wrote:
>>> I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
>>> ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
>>> talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
>>> official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
>>> Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
>>> all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
>>> up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
>>> concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
>>> also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
>>> Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
>>> , phone calls, e-mail etc.
>> I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I could offer the space again (I'd need to reserve the rooms far in advance).  Offering my time to schedule and gather speakers and people is what caused the last attempt to fizzle.  I'd be happy to setup the same signup page (and even enhance it if there's desires for it to do more) again.  Really, getting speakers committed and organized is the largest part of the work other than the actual event itself.
> 
> If there's sufficient interest, and a range of dates chosen, I'll be glad to go see what I can arrange with our conferencing guys.

The stars are aligning themselves very nicely for a second D conference. However, I would like to suggest a few changes this time around that are aimed at improving the quality of the conference.

* All submissions will be reviewed by a committee. They must be presented at least as abstract + slides for review. The committee will reject weak submissions even though there might be "space" left. No more "I think I can slap together something" this time around.

* The conference should not be free. This may seem odd, but I am convinced that a non-free conference will end up being better than a free one. There will be a cost that's reasonable but non-null. Speakers will get appropriate discounts and transportation reimbursements, which encourages competitiveness and also allows us to bring an outside authority for e.g. a keynote talk.

* We should put together one or more panels. I personally don't care much for panels/roundtables/etc., but somehow most people love them. For the state of D in particular, I believe the panel format will be very appropriate.

In short, I'd like to hold a real, good-quality conference.


Andrei

On Tue, 12 May 2009, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> The stars are aligning themselves very nicely for a second D conference. However, I would like to suggest a few changes this time around that are aimed at improving the quality of the conference.
> 
> * All submissions will be reviewed by a committee. They must be presented at least as abstract + slides for review. The committee will reject weak submissions even though there might be "space" left. No more "I think I can slap together something" this time around.

Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.

> * The conference should not be free. This may seem odd, but I am convinced that a non-free conference will end up being better than a free one. There will be a cost that's reasonable but non-null. Speakers will get appropriate discounts and transportation reimbursements, which encourages competitiveness and also allows us to bring an outside authority for e.g. a keynote talk.

Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to put additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.  I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have otherwise attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying is that there needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to attend, though it would certainly help.

> * We should put together one or more panels. I personally don't care much for panels/roundtables/etc., but somehow most people love them. For the state of D in particular, I believe the panel format will be very appropriate.

I agree.  I love panel discussions as they become actual discussions rather than presentations with Q/A sprinkled in or after.

> In short, I'd like to hold a real, good-quality conference.

I'm all for this, but I'd quibble about the definition.

Later,
Brad

Hello Walter,

> Jason House wrote:
> 
>> I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
>> ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
>> talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
>> official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
>> Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
>> all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
>> up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
>> concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
>> also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
>> Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
>> , phone calls, e-mail etc.
>> 
> I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.
> 

I'm game. I might (note I said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put together a talk on something.

Hello Brad,
> 
> Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to
> justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there
> will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be
> rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.
> 

Tell someone they might not be good enough and sometime they will be even more willing to try.

> Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to
> put additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.
> I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have
> otherwise attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying
> is that there needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to
> attend, though it would certainly help.
> 

If $20 keeps someone out, they aren't that interested in the first place

> I agree.  I love panel discussions as they become actual discussions
> rather than presentations with Q/A sprinkled in or after.
> 

Something over food would be really cool! Kinda like the dinner in the middle of that 1st conference but less spread out.

Brad Roberts wrote:
> Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.

It's a fair amount of work to put together a presentation. Being able to offer a free ticket, plus perhaps some expense reimbursement for speakers, can be very motivating (and is only fair).

BCS wrote:
> Hello Brad,
>>
>> Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to
>> justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there
>> will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be
>> rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.
>>
> 
> Tell someone they might not be good enough and sometime they will be even more willing to try.
> 
>> Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to
>> put additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.
>> I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have
>> otherwise attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying
>> is that there needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to
>> attend, though it would certainly help.
>>
> 
> If $20 keeps someone out, they aren't that interested in the first place

Yes. No doubt the first conference was an unqualified success (thanks, Brad!) but this time around the novelty factor has worn off. It's not the first step on the moon, it's going again on the moon.

We must have quality to offer. And at the risk of annoying BCS and others, let me point out that I don't think this is the best way to go (although it does work and God knows I've done it): "I might (note I said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put together a talk on something."

The way it ideally goes is not starting from giving a talk on "something"  and then figuring out the "something". Ideally /you have something specific to say/ in the first place, and completing a submission is a matter of chipping the extra marble away.

About money: if the conference is free the perception is that you get what you paid for. Remember how many people said "yeah, I might make it" and then didn't show? I think people should get a lot this time around, and that the organizers and participants should make a mutual commitment by putting a monetary value on it.


Andrei