Al 02/10/12 16:16, En/na Barry Rowlingson ha escrit:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Custer wrote:
Just picking the 'good' talks may lead the conference to once again have
many talks about the same projects that have come to dominate and fewer
talks from new talent.
Therefore picking t
On 2/10/2012 9:34 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
One thing I really disliked in the past is that the size of abstracts
really differed and abstracts were sometimes really large.
Please limit people to a small and to-the-point abstract, at least for
the voting process.
+1
It is important for
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Custer wrote:
> Just picking the 'good' talks may lead the conference to once again have
> many talks about the same projects that have come to dominate and fewer
> talks from new talent.
>
> Therefore picking talks only on the individual merits, whether of
On 10/2/12 3:05 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
(snip)
> it seems that we have two processes going on - what sounds
like a good talk, and who sounds like a good speaker.
(snip)
Beyond that, there is the question of selecting between tal
oun...@lists.osgeo.org [discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on
>> behalf of Paul Ramsey [pram...@opengeo.org]
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:43 PM
>> To: Volker Mische
>> Cc: osgeo-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process
>>
>>
Hi Volker,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Volker Mische wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> does it means you against a public voting in general? Or against one
> which includes names? Or do you like the idea of a public voting which
> only contains the abstracts but nothing else?
I never liked much the pu
On 10/02/2012 01:43 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Volker Mische wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don't agree. I like the idea of having the community vote on the
>> abstracts only and then the organising committee can make the call of
>> adding some some big names to draw th
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Volker Mische wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't agree. I like the idea of having the community vote on the
> abstracts only and then the organising committee can make the call of
> adding some some big names to draw the expected attention to the
> conference. They may ev
inward focused technical /
> developer oriented presentations and outward focused policy /
> success / benefit type good news presentations.
> >
> > -joel
> >
> >
> >
> > From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
> [discuss-boun...@lists.osg
One thing I really disliked in the past is that the size of abstracts really
differed and abstracts were sometimes really large.
Please limit people to a small and to-the-point abstract, at least for the
voting process.
Best regards,
Bart
--
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS - http://osgis.nl
On O
On 10/02/2012 11:24 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Cameron Shorter
> wrote:
>
>> With my "simple maths" hat on:
>> Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think about,
>> and provide a ranking.
>> Total review time = 300 minutes = 6 hours.
>>
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Cameron Shorter
wrote:
> With my "simple maths" hat on:
> Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think about,
> and provide a ranking.
> Total review time = 300 minutes = 6 hours.
>
> Best not to complicate the review process thus increasing
On 2/10/2012 5:05 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
With my statistician hat on, and not speaking as a member of the
committee, it seems that we have two processes going on - what sounds
like a good talk, and who sounds like a good speaker. Maybe we should
run two review systems - one with*just* nam
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Well said Cameron, with the aside that there may be an interesting talk from
> a previously little known person.
>
> I suggest leaving this to the discretion of the LOC and interested parties
> who subscribe to that year’s FOSS4G
PM
> To: Volker Mische
> Cc: osgeo-discuss
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process
>
> I'm in favour too. It has potential, let's see how an anonymous
> community process works in practice.
>
> P.
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:31
tations.
-joel
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on
behalf of Paul Ramsey [pram...@opengeo.org]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Volker Mische
Cc: osgeo-discuss
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process
I'm i
...@opengeo.org]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Volker Mische
Cc: osgeo-discuss
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process
I'm in favour too. It has potential, let's see how an anonymous
community process works in practice.
P.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Vol
I'm in favour too. It has potential, let's see how an anonymous
community process works in practice.
P.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Volker Mische wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 10/01/2012 06:10 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>> In our bid for FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham, we didn't precisely say how we
>>
Hi all,
On 10/01/2012 06:10 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> In our bid for FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham, we didn't precisely say how we
> intended to select presentations for the main track of the conference.
> Some discussion amongst the committee has been going on, and we think
> it necessary to informa
On Oct 1, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Barry Rowlingson
wrote:
> * some names are big draws, and it would be disappointing to not have
> someone because their abstract wasn't that exciting.
If they don't have anything interesting to say, they should not be "big draws."
Selection should be on the "chara
In our bid for FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham, we didn't precisely say how we
intended to select presentations for the main track of the conference.
Some discussion amongst the committee has been going on, and we think
it necessary to informally poll the community to get a feel for what
method is preferred
21 matches
Mail list logo
