Do we want to make this a must again? OK for me. But then maybe already mention in the "contribution" section.

Last year we accepted talks after the deadline and I uploaded them on YouTube just 1-2 days ahead. It was fine, but I think it would be more chaotic without a deadline a few days ahead.

If the question was about the recorded talks in general, I would vote to keep it: I really enjoyed the concept last year (good quality talks, on time, the speaker could answer questions at the same time).

The submission deadline or the pre-recording?

We accepted videos also after the pre-recording submission deadline.
But now that you mention this, do we want to play the "first abstract submission / now extended abstract submission deadline" game? It usually helps to remind people or to announce it twice, but then we should set the first submission deadline earlier.

The submission deadline or the pre-recording?

The question referred to @uekerman's comment.

But now that you mention this, do we want to play the "first abstract submission / now extended abstract submission deadline" game? It usually helps to remind people or to announce it twice, but then we should set the first submission deadline earlier.

Why not, the registration page is now also prepared for this. What's the problem with January 17th? We will only announce the whole workshop within this week.

I believe the content of the talk would be pretty much the same for a pre-recorded talk and a live talk. A participant would prepare the slides for a pre-recorded talk in advance, just as they would do for a live talk.

Here I mainly wanted to differentiate between our approach and of larger conferences with pre-recorded talks. There, "presenting" two months before the Q&A was strange.

They would prepare the slides in advance, but I have often experienced last-minute live presentations, which usually do not work out. But I agree that there can also be a last-minute recording (which, however, we can reject if it is overtime).

I somewhat see this to be really subjective. I would believe that a participant giving a live talk would still attend other talks and participate in discussions the day before their own talk (have been here personally).

Definitely would want to attend, but at least in presence conferences, people often don't join some talks or social events because of this effect. I guess in a virtual workshop this is not such a big concern.

I honestly believe that the on-the-fly Q&A is not as effective as the talk + Q&A afterwards. I even remember instances from the 2021 workshop where speakers just replied saying that the explanation is coming up in the video soon. I even thought that having a video hampers the ability of a speaker to explain their point if they want to go back to a specific slide and really explain specific content.

But in live talks, it is very very common that there are none or only a single question, because there is no time left to discuss questions, or because there has to be all this jumping around slides to ask something from the beginning. I thought that last year we liked that the speakers could answer questions at the same time. In total, I understand that we can process more questions (with lower entry barrier) like this.

We can always upload the slides next to the video and use them in the Q&A. Also in live talks, speakers need to jump back to slides, as nobody interrupts while they are speaking.

If we phrase it as "you have two options, but we suggest the high-effort option", then I expect that most people will be excited about the high-effort option in the beginning, but for pragmatic reasons they will fall back to the low-effort option near/after the deadline.

This point still remains open.

I don't suggest that we force pre-recorded talks ("oh, you want to do a live talk? Sorry, we cannot accept this."), only that we make it a special case that will be deviating from the norm ("is there a special reason you prefer this? We would like to remind you again of why we are doing this. If, for example, you want to do an interactive talk, this is perfectly fine!).

Okay lets try to converge here. I understand the points @MakisH has expressed and indeed many of them are very relevant for this workshop. Overall I think the following is very much acceptable:

I don't suggest that we force pre-recorded talks ("oh, you want to do a live talk? Sorry, we cannot accept this."), only that we make it a special case that will be deviating from the norm ("is there a special reason you prefer this? We would like to remind you again of why we are doing this. If, for example, you want to do an interactive talk, this is perfectly fine!).

Shall we go with this now?

From my side, yes, but how?

Maybe @IshaanDesai has an idea how to shape this in words?

Yes, just give me some time, I'll add this.

@MakisH @davidscn @uekerman is this wording better now? We ask for participants to write to us in case they want to do a live presentation. The default is now pre-recorded talks.