We are organising an OSGeo-Live Quickstart 48 hour hackathon, aimed
squarely at bringing OSGeo-Live documentation quality up one notch, by
putting the Quickstarts through the same comprehensive testing and
review that we have provided for our Project Overviews. (Credit to Javi
and the
Dear Venka and Massimiliano,
I feel we have to defend the Foss4G2013 AT a bit here (as AT co-chairs we
should ;-)
It is actually not true that Previous FOSS4G's had abstract review by the
academic committee
and selected authors were asked to submit full papers closer to the
conference dates.
Hi,
There are many ways to do this.
In my experience some academic conferences that have peer reviewed outputs have
developed the following Modus Operandi (I don't know how normal this is):
1. Abstracts and/or Modified Abstracts or Full Papers (and sometimes Posters)
are published in
Hi,
FWIW, I have to say that as far as i remember (and I participate at all of
the FOSS4G meeting from Bangkok to Denver) I always:
- submitted and abstract,
- got acceptance or not as presenter,
- provided a paper for proceeding, and if selected for publication.
In Denver this process led me to
Hello,
Thanks for discussing this important topic.
The last global FOSS4G editions gathered on average 800+ attendees i think.
I have no clues on how many of them sumitted or attended the academic
track, but i know that this side of the conference is really important, and
that the rules should
Just a quick reply:
1- we did publish the Call for Papers, with the current setup, already in
October last year. Details about the publication outlets and numbers we
aim for (8-10 in Transactions of GIS and 10-12 in OSGEO Journal) are in
there, and were on the website from that time. We did set
