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

[Lorenzo Becchi]

I don't know if my opinion counts in this debate.

I don't agree to add rules.
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.

lorenzo


On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Venka <venka.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> One oral and one poster per first (corresponding) author
> may be a good rule to follow. And as I have been saying
> before, try to reduce length of general presentations
> from 30 minutes to 20 minutes.
>
> I guess that the comments that Daniel mentioned below
> mostly concern the General Presentation Track.
>
> In the Academic Track at FOSS4G2010, the acceptance
> has been quite high. Some presenters opted for
> either oral or poster and a good number of excellent
> poster presentations have been selected.
>
> We have to find ways to make the poster sessions
> lively and interactive. I do not think that one
> hour core time for poster presenters to be available
> at their poster display is too short.
>
> Venka
>
>
> On 2010/07/08 4:21, 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100708/85cbe420/attachment.html