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

[Tyler Mitchell]

Judit, I think you touch on the main point - balancing community voting processes with OSGeo objectives for FOSS4G.  Perhaps clarifying those objectives in the future would be helpful for us to do.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judit Mays <mays at lat-lon.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Re: [mapserver-dev] GeoServer superseeding MapServer in Europe?
To: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Cc: Paul Ramsey <pramsey at opengeo.org>, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com>

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have not been reading the corresponding mails on the mapserver-dev
> list, but from what I have been reading here I would like to 
> toss in my
> 2 cent.
> 
> Limiting the presentations to one per person disregarding the topics
> they talk on would obviously not make much sense. So instead of 
> focusingtoo much on the number of talks per person, I would 
> value it higher to
> ensure that the OSGeo-Gathering-Of-Tribes (FOSS4G) will first of all
> represent all OSGeo projects equally well, while also giving other
> (non-OSGeo) open source projects a fair chance to present their 
> projectsand work.
> 
> So instead of focusing on "how many presenters from whatever
> company/organization?" I suggest to focus on "does the conference
> program present the OSGeo projects well?". Once that is 
> achieved, give
> the remaining free slots to non-OSGeo open source projects so 
> they may
> gather enough momentum to join OSGeo in the near of far future.
> 
> With regard to what Cameron said about the hard job of choosing which
> abstract to accept: I am glad that it is not my duty to do the 
> selection.
> Kind regards,
> Judit
> 
> 
> Paul Ramsey schrieb:
> > 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
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Judit Mays
> l a t / l o n  GmbH
> Aennchenstrasse 
> 19                 53177 Bonn, Germany
> phone ++49 +228 18496-
> 0            fax ++49 +228 18496-29
> http://www.lat-
> lon.de              http://www.deegree.org
> Follow deegree on Twitter: http://twitter.com/deegree_org
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20100707/decd9398/attachment.html