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

[Lorenzo Becchi]

I love smart and open guidelines as the one we have:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Official_OSGeo_Event_Policy#OSGeo_Event_Guidelines
and our mission:
http://www.osgeo.org/about

I would not change a line in this documents


said this, I'm sorry if some interesting presentations are not inside the
program. I'm know we had to exclude a lot of interesting ones.
Anyway I know we did our best and that's what make me feel comfortable with
our choices.

ciao
Lorenzo


On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Judit Mays <mays at lat-lon.de> wrote:

> 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 focusing
> too 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 projects
> and 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f6aba9f4/attachment.html