baggers data change proposal

[dadoonet]

As I'm adding some features to the website, I'd like to propose a new format for baggers.

Nowadays, we have:

{
   "name":"BAGGER NAME",
   "bio":"BIO",
   "picture":"Link to picture",
   "websites":[
      {
         "title":"Blog",
         "href":"LINK"
      },
      {
         "title":"GitHub",
         "href":"LINK"
      }
   ],
   "twitter":"ACCOUNT",
   "contact":"EMAIL",
   "mail":"EMAIL",
   "location":"CITY NAME",
   "sessions":[
      {
         "title":"TITLE",
         "summary":"ABSTRACT"
      }
   ],
   "tags":[
      "TAG",
      "TAG"
   ],
   "cities":[
      "CITY NAME",
      "CITY NAME"
   ]
}

Change proposal:

{
   "created":"DATE OF CREATION",
   "name":"BAGGER NAME",
   "bio":"BIO with support for HTML / Markdown",
   "picture":"Link to picture",
   "websites":[
      {
         "title":"Blog",
         "href":"LINK"
      },
      {
         "title":"GitHub",
         "href":"LINK"
      }
   ],
   "twitter":"ACCOUNT",
   "mail":"EMAIL",
   "location":"CITY NAME",
   "sessions":[
      {
         "title":"TITLE",
         "summary":"ABSTRACT",
         "tags":[
            "TAG",
            "TAG"
         ]
      }
   ],
   "cities":[
      {
         "city":"CITY NAME",
         "range":"30km"
      },
      {
         "city":"CITY NAME",
         "range":"30km"
      }
   ]
}

Main changes:

• Remove contact as we have the same information in mail
• Add created so we can have a section with the new comers and also provide stats per year
• Move tags in sessions so users will be able to choose a talk by a tag
• cities now gives from which city a speaker can talk and up to which distance. It will help to propose talks based on geo loc.

Thoughts?

[fsarradin]

• created => since or bagger_since
• tags in session => ok
• cities + range => ok
• duplication between contact and email => you'll have to wait for second answer as I'm on a phone ^^

[dadoonet]

@fsarradin Thanks for the first comments so far. I agree about since.

About duplication, I know that for historical reason, we had both but as far as I can see now we are not publishing anymore the mail but using contact in our contact form.

[fsarradin]

@dadoonet there some people that prefers to be contacted by twitter instead of mail. As an example, take a look at "mathieubolla" who has no mail.

There's also some people who doesn't have the same value between contact and mail because contact is displayed. This isn't the case for mail, which is used to send mail to baggers.

[dadoonet]

@fsarradin I just looked at http://www.brownbaglunch.fr/baggers.html and I was not able to see any contact displayed. Are you sure that we are still using it? That was my initial concern.

I think we should:

• keep only mail
• if mail is empty, instead of displaying the contact form, open twitter and create a new tweet like Hi @[TWITTER_VALUE]! I'd like to invite you for a @bbl_fr talk. or something along those lines.

Thoughts?

[fsarradin]

@dadoonet you've got the point about the usage of contact. Your solution is one possibility. On the other hand, I propose to remove mail and use contact with this URN pattern:

• mailto:email@ddr.ess
• tweetto:@twitteraccount
• whatever:...

Thoughts (your turn ;) )?

[dadoonet]

I don't like having to parse the string TBH.

We could split the contact as:

"contact": {
   "type": "mail",
   "url": "email@ddr.ess"
}

"contact": {
   "type": "twitter",
   "url": "twitteraccount"
}

With type by default equal to mail so people can write:

"contact": {
   "url": "email@ddr.ess"
}

But it makes the structure more complicated...

Unsure... Your turn? :D

May be others could comment ??? @linsolas WDYT?

[dadoonet]

Closing as changed have been merged now...