[OSGeo-Conf] Re: [mapserver-dev] GeoServer superseeding MapServer in Europe?

[Tyler Erickson]

Why not limit presenters to only one talk submission?  I've seen other
conferences with that restriction.  For the most part it seems to be a
beneficial, by encouraging presenters to submit their best work, rather than
submitting multiple abstracts.

As a concrete example, the AGU fall meeting limits potential presenters to
the submission of one abstract (of which they are the primary author).
However, a presenter can be listed as a non-primary author on other's
abstract submission.  Since the primary presenter for each talk has to
register for the conference, it limits the number of abstracts and
(presumably) increases the quality.

- Tyler


On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:

> The concept of having one talk per presenter makes a lot of sense. It will
> be appreciated by the presenters as well as the audience because they
> receive a well prepared talk. And the presenters do not get over stressed.
>
> Not so sure about the restriction of one presentation per organizations. If
> an org can afford to send several presenters, good for them, good for us. If
> they mess up it will show.
>
> But this does not solve the problem that currently one has to submit
> several talks in the hope that one "will make it". I have no good idea how
> to deal with that.
>
> Best regards,
> Arnulf
>
> PS:
> Germany : Spain
> 0 : 1
>
> Too bad. :-)
>
>
> On 07/07/2010 09:21 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
>> People annoyed their talk wasn't selected: News at 11.
>>
>> 120 slots, 360 talks. I thought the LOC did as well as they could
>> integrating the community scores (which were heavily biased towards
>> technology talks on "popular things") with their own judgements, given
>> that they were going to have to reject 2 of every 3 submissions.
>>
>> We could institute an only-one-talk-per-person policy, it would
>> certainly help revenues (right Cameron? :) There will still be
>> interesting talks rejected and people annoyed though. I think further
>> discriminating (as a policy) based on organizational affiliation is a
>> bridge too far though, if I may put a self-interested oar in.
>>
>> P.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Morissette
>> <dmorissette at mapgears.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> <off_topic>
>>> Since you opened the FOSS4G selection process can of worms, I am of the
>>> opinion that the current FOSS4G selection process has some problems and
>>> needs some work, as demonstrated by the fact that several
>>> people/organizations got multiple talks, while at the same time several
>>> others with less prominent names got turned down with very interesting
>>> proposals. I got comments from several people about that after the
>>> FOSS4G selection results were announced.
>>> </off_topic>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> http://arnulf.us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20100707/c4ff1fb9/attachment.html