On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:28 PM Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:11 AM Nick Desaulniers > wrote: > > > > Ok, I will recall the "Toolchains and Kernel MC" proposal then; my > > main interest was to have a venue for discussion about Rust+Linux; if > > there's another venue more appropriate let's use that so that conf > > organizers aren't confused by multiple proposals. > > Yep, my idea was coordinating this rather than sending different > proposals around -- I have received no replies so far either on my > proposal for a Rust talk (back when the MC was discussed). Ah, right, my fault. I'm sorry, I should have provided feedback then that our MC proposal itself was not the appropriate venue for the actual talk submissions. The conf organizers have a call for microconferences before the microconferences even have topics. They want MC organizers to propose ideas, and what was accomplished since last year as a result of last years' MCs. Once the MC proposals get accepted, then the MCs open calls for papers (CFP) for individual talks. I'm still waiting to hear from conference organizers when they will accept talks; last year they did start publishing accepted MCs on the LPC blog: https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2021/ (you can see so far there are no announcements). Until they accept our MC or reject it, I cannot even yet open our call for papers. But note that my proposal very much was tailored to carving out time for Rust; see attached. Once I know if the MC is accepted, then at that point we will have a CFP. It's my strong recommendation that the conference talks related to programming languages be a part of the Toolchains and Kernel MC (assuming it gets accepted). Whether it's one or two sessions doesn't matter to me, though perhaps once we issue the call for papers will depend on the response. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers