The Association of American Geographers (AAG) has been trying to limit people to one presentation, panel or poster. Their's is more a logistical problem. It's very hard to find a venue that can handle 8000+ attendees and even harder to coordinate presentations sessions in a way that makes sense. Limiting each person to one presentation is reasonable.<div>
<br></div><div>Another way we can "borrow" from AAG is to have themed sessions with their own organizers. The organizer will submit a proposal for a session (4 presentations). Presenters can specify that their presentation is for a specific session. Then the organizer picks and chooses which are best. Alex did this at AAG in Las Vegas and was allocated two sessions (8 presentations) and a discussion panel. </div>
<div><br></div><div>-Eric</div><div><br clear="all">-=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-<br>Eric B. Wolf New! 720-334-7734<br>USGS Geographer<br>Center of Excellence in GIScience<br>PhD Student <br>
CU-Boulder - Geography<br><br>GPG Public Key: <a href="http://www.h4h.net/ebwolf.public.key.txt">http://www.h4h.net/ebwolf.public.key.txt</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Paul Ramsey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pramsey@opengeo.org">pramsey@opengeo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
People annoyed their talk wasn't selected: News at 11.<br>
<br>
120 slots, 360 talks. I thought the LOC did as well as they could<br>
integrating the community scores (which were heavily biased towards<br>
technology talks on "popular things") with their own judgements, given<br>
that they were going to have to reject 2 of every 3 submissions.<br>
<br>
We could institute an only-one-talk-per-person policy, it would<br>
certainly help revenues (right Cameron? :) There will still be<br>
interesting talks rejected and people annoyed though. I think further<br>
discriminating (as a policy) based on organizational affiliation is a<br>
bridge too far though, if I may put a self-interested oar in.<br>
<br>
P.<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Morissette<br>
<<a href="mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com">dmorissette@mapgears.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <off_topic><br>
> Since you opened the FOSS4G selection process can of worms, I am of the<br>
> opinion that the current FOSS4G selection process has some problems and<br>
> needs some work, as demonstrated by the fact that several<br>
> people/organizations got multiple talks, while at the same time several<br>
> others with less prominent names got turned down with very interesting<br>
> proposals. I got comments from several people about that after the<br>
> FOSS4G selection results were announced.<br>
> </off_topic><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>