Hi Marco en Volker,<br>today we've been discussing about this issue in a meeting.<br><br>This is not a definitive opinion but we think it would be really complicated to manage the voting system if, as we expect, we will receive a lot more of proposal than the previous conferences.<br>
We are thinking to leave the selection in the hands of the scientific committee, we already have the platform and we are moving to create committee as faster as possible.<br><br>thank a lot for your contribute<br>lorenzo<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Volker Mische <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:volker.mische@gmail.com">volker.mische@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi All,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Marco Ciolli wrote:<br>
> I specify that I have liked very much Sidney conference, but many people<br>
> (and I am among them) strongly disagreed with the procedure<br>
> used in Sidney that made people vote for or against abstracts through<br>
> the web.<br>
> I personally know some colleagues who decided not to participate Sidney<br>
> conference after having understood how the selection procedure worked,<br>
> independently from the result of the selection itself.<br>
> We are talking about an Open Source conference, so everyone who wants<br>
> should be allowed to participate and to present works. A selection<br>
> should be done deciding what are the works worth to be presented in oral<br>
> presentation and what are the works that can be presented in a poster<br>
> session but nobody should be excluded because he has not enough friends<br>
> who vote for him.<br>
> A "scientific" committee should decide where to put the different works<br>
> (oral scientific/oral general/poster) instead, as it generally happens<br>
> in conferences.<br>
> However, the web vote could be interesting to complete some information<br>
> about the single papers.<br>
<br>
</div>It seems that the selection process for the Sydney FOSS4G wasn't well<br>
understood. It was like that:<br>
- Public voting on all Abstracts<br>
- A special academic committee (around Thierry Badard) made the<br>
selection for the academic track (AFAIK the way it works for academic<br>
conferences, with reviews etc).<br>
- If a academic presentation wasn't selected for the academic track, it<br>
could've been still in the other track of presentations<br>
- After the public voting the was a selection process with the people<br>
from the Organising Committee (and some others, like people from OSgeo).<br>
Of course their selection was based on the voting, but also on their<br>
judgement. For me the public voting worked great. You get an idea what<br>
the people want to see and the selection was really quite good IMHO. So<br>
the selection wasn't solely based on the voting, which wouldn't make<br>
sense as it might have been manipulated (as you stated correctly).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<font color="#888888"> Volker<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Foss4g2010 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Foss4g2010@lists.osgeo.org">Foss4g2010@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>