search

tighten / symposium

Management of proposals, bios, photos, etc. for conference speakers.
https://symposiumapp.com/
MIT License
185 stars 66 forks source link

The concept of talk "versions" is confusing for people who don't want it #48

Closed mattstauffer closed 9 years ago

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

It'd be better to hide all "version" talk until someone hit a button that said they want to version this talk or something.

adamwathan commented 9 years ago

I wonder if the simplest approach is to remove them altogether, and anyone who wants to keep 2 versions of a talk can just create two talks? As far as I can figure they wouldn't share that much right? Different abstracts, different slides, different notes, etc. I think the experience cost of supporting them isn't worth it since it's a pretty limited use case.

I would say it's better to hurt the experience of the 10% case than the 90% case. Try and keep it focused on the least noisy, cleanest, most efficient workflow possible.

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

Yah. That is absolutely worth considering. 

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

I've been thinking about it for a while... versions offer a tiny bit of convenience, but the actual shared data between two versions is almost nothing.

And it adds a ton of code and user onboarding complexity.

I put out a request for feedback but if we don't hear back in the next day, I'll get started on dumping versions (and writing a migration script for anyone with live data that uses versions).

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

https://twitter.com/assertchris/status/600404722311299073

@assertchris: "@stauffermatt think type is more valuable than version nickname. Removing versions will make all the things simple! :)"

coderabbi commented 9 years ago

I may be the minority here, but for me the 'version' is of the abstract, not the talk. The talk is the same, the question is which CfP Submissions (abstracts) got traction for that talk...

adamwathan commented 9 years ago

We got you covered on that either way :)

— Adam

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Yitzchok Willroth notifications@github.com wrote:

I may be the minority here, but for me the 'version' is of the abstract, not the talk. The talk is the same, the question is which CfP Submissions (abstracts) got traction for that talk... [[selfie-placeholder-0]]

[[selfie-placeholder-0]]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/tightenco/symposium/issues/48#issuecomment-103211457

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

@coderabbi I think that's solved more by revisions. :) Since a revision is linked to a submission.. Revision is more about history (e.g. "I submitted this revision to PHP Tek and this revision to these three conferences and I got into Tek but not the others")

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

haha, like @adamwathan said--we got you covered sans versions.

coderabbi commented 9 years ago

Yep, that would work.

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Matt Stauffer notifications@github.com wrote:

@coderabbi https://github.com/coderabbi I think that's solved more by revisions. :) Since a revision is linked to a submission.. Revision is more about history (e.g. "I submitted this revision to PHP Tek and this revision to these three conferences and I got into Tek but not the others")

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/tightenco/symposium/issues/48#issuecomment-103211687.

mattstauffer commented 9 years ago

OK, it has been decided. :) Thanks for the feedback!