Call for participation is about to open and the first proposals for activities will be submitted soon. We need to define and document our selection process. I think last year's process was good enough, and I would only try to apply improvements to it.
@RobLa-WMF has already mentioned that the requirement for an RfC should be more flexible, and I agree with this. Sometimes an RfC will be the right context for a proposal, sometimes not.
I suspect there is going to be more competition to get one of the pre-scheduled slots in the agenda, which probably will have an implication on the size of the room as well (we have a new venue and I still don't know the details and flexibility about room sizes). For this reason, I propose to be more strict on the requirements for prior discussion and good preparation of the proposal before the event. Something like this:
- Proposals for pre-scheduled sessions with a good problem statement, defined expectations and links to relevant resources move forward, the rest don't.
- Proposals for pre-scheduled sessions with active discussion properly summarized move forward, the rest don't.
- If these filters are not enough, we have the possibility to send a request to all the Summit participants to RSVP in the sessions they would like to attend, in order to get an idea of potentially required room sizes.