[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: FOSS4G 2007 Workshop Submission
jgarnett at refractions.net
Thu Mar 29 17:30:49 EDT 2007
Hi Daniel -
I agree that workshops are the most valued part of the conference; I was
a bit sad personally to do some more developer focused workshops (but
looking at the target audience for the conference I did not expect any
such applications to be successful).
Since I was interested in the conference being balanced I joined up as
part of the workshop selection committee - the way it went was we
evaluated project on the criteria mentioned by your link, and the
available facilities were also taken into account (limiting factors
being workstation and budget).
There are a couple of alternatives available:
- demos (looks like I will be running a separate venue)
- code sprint (for the more hands on experience)
You are correct that almost all of the workshops met the acceptance
criteria (a couple missed the "free" boat) - there was competition on
some of the common topics, and I was sad to see a few holes in scope
open up (I had hoped for GeoNetwork as a token catalog component in the
osgeo stack and a .net project in order to appeal to that development
Daniel Ames wrote:
> Paul and others,
> I too was disappointed to be in the 22 of 34 workshop proposals that
> were turned down and would like to suggest that the conference
> organizers re-think the approach to include more workshops.
> At FOSS4g2006, I found the workshops to be perhaps the most useful
> element of the conference. For a highly technical meeting, the value
> of a 1.5 to 3 hour hands-on workshop versus a 20 minute pre-canned
> powerpoint presentation can not be overstated.
> Our project (and I suspect many others) has tried to embrace the
> concept of the FOSS4g venue as an alternative to hosting our own
> separate conference. Certainly this concept was encouraged by last
> year's conference organizers. However for this to work there needs to
> be the opportunity to present our workshops.
> May I suggest the following two changes:
> 1) Reallocate time for more workshops.
> 2) Let the registrants decide which workshops stay. In other words,
> post a list of 34 workshops and keep only those that meet a minimum
> number of committed/paid attendee registration fees.
> I suspect that every one of the 22 rejected workshop proposers could
> argue that they easily meet all of the four criteria listed here:
> Hence letting the broader community vote with their registration
> dollars would seem to be a more "free and open" approach.
> It would be unfortunate to see this as the beginning of a general
> culling process where instead of trying to attract new projects, the
> FOSS4g community begins to become more exclusionary.
> Daniel P. Ames, PhD, PE
> Idaho State University Geospatial Software Lab
> On 3/29/07, *Paul Ramsey* <pramsey at refractions.net
> <mailto:pramsey at refractions.net>> wrote:
> I appreciate your frustration, and I know it is shared by many
> others, as only 12 of the 34 3-hour workshop submissions could be
> hosted. The criteria the workshop committee used in their evaluation
> are here:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/ <http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/>
> All the committee members ranked the submissions on those criteria
> and the rankings were averaged. Two workshops in the top 12 that
> were topic duplicates were removed and the next-lowest-ranked non-
> duplicates were moved up. It appears that being on the committee is
> no guarantee of satisfaction with the final result. The average of a
> bunch of lists people want is a list that no one is 100% happy with.
> On 28-Mar-07, at 10:36 PM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
> > Dear people,
> > Thank you for your information. I have to say I find that pretty
> > frustrating and annoying knowing that GeoNetwork opensource is one
> > of the incubator projects of OSGEO, the number of OSGEO projects is
> > (still) limited and FOSS4G is the OSGEO conference.
> > Participating with the project in OSGEO has multiple reasons, one
> > of them being that it provides opportunities to work on synergies
> > and work on marketing the OSGEO software stack. Now how does the
> > intent of OSGEOs mission fit with refusing a (single) workshop on
> > one of its projects. Maybe I miss something, but I'd assumed there
> > was at least some kind of a relation!?
> > Looking forward to some good feedback and discussion on this, also
> > on the OSGEO mailing list as I consider that discussion very
> > relevant in the further development of outreach strategies for
> > ourselves and the OSGEO foundation through conferences.
> > Core question:
> > "Should OSGEO projects have guaranteed workshop and presentation
> > space for at least one session?"
> > Regards,
> > Jeroen
> > On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:58 PM, FOSS4G 2007 wrote:
> >> Dear Jeroen Ticheler,
> >> We regret to inform you that we will not be able to accept your
> >> Half Day
> >> workshop, "Using the GeoNetwork opensource Spatial Data Catalog",
> >> for the
> >> FOSS4G 2007 program. We had a very large number of submissions
> >> this year, and
> >> have been able to accept less than half of them
> >> .
> >> We hope you will consider bringing some of your ideas to the
> >> conference in the
> >> form of a presentation. The Call for Presentations is currently
> >> open, and
> >> there is room for 120 presentations at the conference this year
> >> .
> >> http://www.foss4g2007.org/presentations
> >> Yours,
> >> The FOSS4G 2007 Conference Committee
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss