I don't know if my opinion counts in this debate.<br><br>I don't agree to add rules.<br>Three filters of selection (academic, community, LOC) are a pretty good chance to have a good selection. no way to make it perfect: we are human beens. And rules make things even more complicated.<br>
<br>lorenzo<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Venka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
One oral and one poster per first (corresponding) author<br>
may be a good rule to follow. And as I have been saying<br>
before, try to reduce length of general presentations<br>
from 30 minutes to 20 minutes.<br>
<br>
I guess that the comments that Daniel mentioned below<br>
mostly concern the General Presentation Track.<br>
<br>
In the Academic Track at FOSS4G2010, the acceptance<br>
has been quite high. Some presenters opted for<br>
either oral or poster and a good number of excellent<br>
poster presentations have been selected.<br>
<br>
We have to find ways to make the poster sessions<br>
lively and interactive. I do not think that one<br>
hour core time for poster presenters to be available<br>
at their poster display is too short.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Venka</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 2010/07/08 4:21, Paul Ramsey wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); 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" target="_blank">dmorissette@mapgears.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<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>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">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>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">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>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>