-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
September 2017 #37
Comments
At the August meetup (#35) we discussed the idea of having a round of "RFC lightning talks", where a bunch of people present their favorite/exiting RFCs in 5 minutes each. If we want to do that, I'd say we need at least 3 talks by the beginning of the last week in August. This is also most likely not a question of find stuff to talk about together (we could probably even reduce the scope to "already merged but not yet implemented RFCs" and still have no trouble of finding topics for 10 talks) but of finding speakers and tie them down for a talk. |
Date would 6.9., which works for me |
Should we get started with this, e.g. sending out the save the date, etc? |
Sure. Do we want to go ahead with the RFC plan, @colin-kiegel, @Florob? Maybe we can even send out an extra-early invite :) |
I'm fine with sending out an early invite for the "RFC plan". I guess even if no-one else has something to present we should find 3 talks among the four of us. |
Yup, I'd be fine with it as well and I would happily prepare something to start of |
Let's just write some new RFCs and present those! Kidding aside, I'd be
happy to present a RFC as well.
Is the format okay? 5min lightning talks?
Jan-Erik Rediger <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr. 11. Aug. 2017 um
10:35:
… Yup, I'd be fine with it as well and I would happily prepare something to
start of
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#37 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABOX7YEjJdCOW2DtulT_C54kEjpmINsks5sXBJXgaJpZM4Orv56>
.
|
Hey, I like the idea. If we have three 5-minute talks plus discussion, the official part might be over after one hour. Should we do one round of open-space afterwards, or just leave it to spontaneous activities? early-invitation: IMO an announcement via the mailing list is much more visible than just "publishing" the event. Usually we just publish the event to send our save-the-date reminder, but this is only good for headlines. If we want to send more text (like "please tell us if you want to give a talk ..."), we should do this in a regular mail before/after publishing the event. Does that make sense to you? :-) |
Oh and by the way in July someone told me, that it's difficult for him to attend on Wednesdays due to a hobby (singing in a choir every wednesday). I still believe that we should do irregular exceptions to our first-wednesday-each-month rhythm to attract different people once in a while. So, what about Tuesday 05.09. instead? |
that's why I wrote
:) I think we should aim for 3 to 5 talks and 5min talk + 5min discussion (with hard cuts if necessary).
Everything but Friday works that week for me. (That way I might even be able to go to the Elixir meetup on the 6th |
The alternative date would work even better for me. |
The C4 is taken on Tuesdays. We could probably do Monday the 4th if that works for people. Personally I'd plan a bit more than 5 minutes for discussion, but we can probably vary that depending on the number of RFCs we actually have. |
I don't know yet if I can attend on Monday. But if it works for everyone else that would be ok for me. |
So Monday or Wednesday? Both work for me.
Yep, I'd aim for 5+5 to keep things moving, but not cut off discussions. Invite text proposal (feel free to change; get the markdown source be editing my comment; I went with the default Wednesday date for now):
Totally OT: I just saw https://twitter.com/bpdp/status/895419283307495425 and I want to have an infographic like that for us as well because it's so pretty but I have no idea why we'd need it 😄 |
ok, +1 for wednesday. :-) I also like the invitation text. |
"And boy are there ..." - I don't like this. Can we change that slightly? Should we stay strict to the 5min+5min? Or relax it slightly even in writing (I know that for the discussion it's not a hard hard limit) |
Sure! How about we go all British and say "But, blimey, there are many RFCs!" or stay classy and say "But there sure are a lot of RFCs!" |
Oh, and I'd want to stay rather strict on the 5min limit. If that leads to people compressing there talk down to most interesting parts… well, I won't complain. If bad comes to worse they can always ask for a few more minutes (and we can decide ad-hoc). |
5min it is then! |
I'd say go the (boring|classy|simple) way. |
Hehe, I spontaneously liked the enthusiasm of "And boy ..." ;-) I think one reason for people to come to our meetup is if they expect other people to be enthusiastic about Rust. But don't get me wrong, I don't want to argue over this sentence - I'm perfectly ok with a simple variant, too. I just want to note, that generally I am in favour of enthusiastic, vivid and playful wording (if it doesn't obstruct the message). ^^ |
Ok, I just sent the pre-invitation and updated the description on meetup! :-) |
Thanks! Do you also want to announce the meetup? Or wait for a bit before doing that (and probably sending another mail)? |
I would wait a few days (maybe until next week), because it's not possible to silently publish the meetup. ^^ Although unpublished, it's already possible to RSVP. |
all invitations sent, except for reddit |
will take care of reddit |
I'm coming, but as a pure passive visitor. |
If it's okay, I would like to pick Evolving Rust through Checkpoints, since it's one of the most discussed RFCs so far. |
@mre YES! … You owe me a talk anyway 😉 |
By the way, @Rustaceans/organizers-cologne, should we maybe ping some folks and ask if they want to talk about an RFC they were heavily involved in? Because my fallback idea was to talk about 1946 if we don't have enough other RFCs :) Maybe you feel similarly. |
We should! |
@badboy: @killercup already started a list in the first post #37 (comment) :-) |
Ok, I will talk about either: Which do you prefer? |
nice. My vote for fallible collection allocation. :-) |
as you wish goes reading |
I could imagine talking about RFC #2126: Clarify and streamline paths and visibility. But the 5min-goal will likely be a challenge. :-) @killercup I would like to hear about your rust-lang/rfcs#1946. |
Ohhh, 2126 is a good idea! I totally tuned out of that discussion a while ago 😄 Also: We should totally mention https://request-for-explanation.github.io/podcast/! |
I'd like to talk about RFC 1228: Placement left arrow. |
Thanks all! |
Talks talks talks
We are looking for (you guessed it) talks!
If you'd like to give a lightning talk at this meetup, just write a comment!
Talks we have so far:
Other people who've expressed interesting in giving a talk:
ToDo
Invitation draft
Rust News
Copy
types now implementClone
last month Rust News
const
sunion
sloop {}
canbreak
with a valueeprintln!()
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: