<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/10/2012 5:05 PM, Barry Rowlingson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANVKczOZts32tSH7Fbsybe+HEWStQdODnZX+69SmSX-dR+CvMA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 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 <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>just<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> names and not abstracts or
titles, and the other with just abstracts and no names. That would
give us a measure of who the community wanted to see at the
conference, and what the community thought were great talks unbiased
by the name. The committee would then take both these reports into
consideration for the final selection.</pre>
</blockquote>
If you are inviting the community to review, then I suggest Keep the
review process Simple.<br>
<br>
With my "simple maths" hat on:<br>
Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think
about, and provide a ranking.<br>
Total review time = 300 minutes = 6 hours.<br>
<br>
Best not to complicate the review process thus increasing review
time.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>