Draft CFP misc feedback.

[Carreau]

I ran the Draft CFP through a couple of people, and here is some filtered feedback. I try to include everything even if non-actionable.

• [ ] Rename the Jupyter for science track to “Jupyter for research and Science” track, plus edit the description to include humanities and social sciences explicitly.
• [x] Tracks descriptions is hard to find – tell users they can choose a track to see the description.
• [x] On the accessibility question, add a Description/supporting statement like "we aim to make JupyterCon an inclusive event for everyone, we will use this information to guide logistics decisions and this will not affect your submission."
• [ ] is accessibility and financial help related ?
• [ ] Maybe make a stronger statement that we'll do our best to enforce mask during the conference.
• [x] include a note about which markup the text boxes support
• [x] What is the "notes" field for.
• [ ] Will the image uploaded be visible later.
• [ ] Ask for GH handle ?
• [ ] Extend text on the pre-cfp page.
• [x] Have a single page. 4 pages submission process is annoying.
• [x] Linking back to the main conference site would be useful.
• [ ] Is the conference hybrid ?
• [x] The deadline of 2022-12-15 15:52 is a bit odd
• [x] It might not be a bad idea to repeat the dates/location of the event in the CFP. in emails.
• [x] Link to reviewer forms.

[dtsmith2001]

I'd like to know, based on reviewers experience at past Cons, how much of a time commitment may be required for a new reviewer.

[Carreau]

We're quite unsure, in particular because we haven't done an in-person jupyterCon in quite a while.

In 2018 IIRC, we had around 1000 submissions, and ~70 reviewers, some people reviewed only 10 submission and spend maybe 2/3 hours total on the review process, some other reviewed many dozen of submissions.

Even if you spend 1h on reviewing, that would already be a great feedback. But in general review can take an infinite time like many other tasks.