[OSGeo-Conf] [Foss4g2013] presentation selection [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Thu May 23 14:16:59 PDT 2013
Karel,
I like your idea of having an automated system for providing feedback to
presenters, and think a system could be worked out.
There could be standard feedback options of:
* Congratulations, you have been selected
* Sorry, community ranked you low
* Due to multiple presentations on this topic, your presentation was not
selected
* Due to multiple presentations from you, this presentation was not selected
* ... and a few others
Next step:
* Someone updates our voting software to provide this functionality
* Then update our FOSS4G Cookbook with a Howto run a selection process
I can see there are people who feel passionately about this topic. Are
you passionate enough to do something about it?
On 23/05/2013 11:43 PM, Karel Charvat wrote:
>
> It depends on number of volunteer- revivers, usually every reader has
> responsibility for certain papers and he is making comments. Such
> number is high, but not enormous> Some conferences have more
>
> Karel
>
> *From:*b.j.kobben at utwente.nl [mailto:b.j.kobben at utwente.nl]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:10 PM
> *To:* charvat at ccss.cz; volker.mische at gmail.com
> *Cc:* foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org; conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org;
> b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Conf] presentation selection
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Any idea how much time putting "two three sentences" takes for > 300
> abstracts?
>
> Barend
>
> On 23-05-13 14:09, "Karel Charvat" <charvat at ccss.cz
> <mailto:charvat at ccss.cz>> wrote:
>
> Volker,
>
> Usually it is similar on any conferences that it is done by
> volunteer. But
>
> if there is publishing system put two three sentences and this
> automatically
>
> distributed is not so big effort
>
> Karel
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Volker Mische [mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com]
>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:57 PM
>
> To: Karel Charvat
>
> Cc: 'Massimiliano Cannata'; foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>;
>
> conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; 'Barry Rowlingson'
>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Foss4g2013] presentation selection
>
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Karel,
>
> I can again only speak of 2009, but back then the costs where there to
> cover
>
> the venue and catering. There wasn't any money for the selection
> process. It
>
> was mostly done in the freetime of the LOC members.
>
> I agree that it would be cool to have such a feedback, but it would need
>
> volunteers to do so.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Volker
>
> On 05/23/2013 01:18 PM, Karel Charvat wrote:
>
> Dear Volker, dear others,
>
> I start follow discussion about selection process. I have to say,
> that
>
> I am not very satisfied with Volkers last email.
>
> Why? The FOSS4G fee is comparable with the costs for large scientific
>
> conferences. And usually on these conferences authors are obtaining
>
> any feedback. It is help for them not only for future, but it could
>
> help also in future development. I think, that all this could be done
>
> automatically with publishing system. I think, that the budget for
> this
>
> has to be adequate.
>
> Karel
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> [mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Volker
>
> Mische
>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:03 PM
>
> To: Massimiliano Cannata
>
> Cc: foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>;
> <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>;
>
> Barry Rowlingson
>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Foss4g2013] presentation selection
>
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Hi Maxi,
>
> sending back the results to the authors is really a lot of work.
> There
>
> might be abstracts which are e.g. hardly understandable English. You
>
> will just drop those without actually assign any relevance to them.
>
> The time is of the LOC is really limited and making the selection
>
> already takes hours (at least it was the case in 2009). Heaving even
>
> more overhead would be to much.
>
> Though perhaps it would make sense to have a chance to join the
>
> selection process. So people who like to help out and to a thorough
>
> review can do that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Volker
>
> On 05/23/2013 12:14 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that votes are not a guarantee of real interest.
>
> Suppose you work for a large company that submit an abstract, you
>
> will easily have 100 votes of all the employees but this does not
>
> mean all of them will go to the conference and that the vote was
>
> "driven".
>
> At the same time, I like open and clear evaluation criteria, this
>
> avoid (or at least limit) the acceptance of talk by "friendship",
>
> that also I believe occur.
>
> Something like evaluation rating:
>
> 100 points maximum alssigned:
>
> - 40 for voting rank
>
> - 20 for foss4g project relevance
>
> - 20 fro.... etc.
>
> All the evaluation should then be sent back to the authors.
>
> I Also would like to have some "inspiring" talk from people
> "outside"
>
> (not only well know and great talker, than I like more content
>
> respect to shows) to better understand: what others do? How do
> they see
>
> OSGeo?
>
> What next? etc.
>
> And I would like to see rotation in successive FOSS4G as this
> is the
>
> conference for the community, rather then for the novels to open
>
> source that may have more opportunities to enter in contact
> with open
>
> source in local events organized by local chapters... so I
> would like
>
> to see CONTENT, NEWS, VISION rather then SHOWS and APPEAL.
>
> Of course, this is only my 2 cents... ;-)
>
> Maxi
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Volker Mische
>
> <volker.mische at gmail.com <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>
> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>
> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com%3e>> wrote:
>
> Hi Bart,
>
> I didn't want to be fierce, but explaining my experience. I
>
> especially
>
> felt like replying as you gave me a reality check quite often on
>
> topics
>
> where I had a completely different view in the past.
>
> My problem with the community voting is, does it really reflect
>
> what
>
> the
>
> community wants? I'm not saying the community is too stupid to
>
> know
>
> what
>
> they really one and someone else needs to decide what's best.
> I think
>
> the problem is the open voting. It's easy to get an bias in there.
>
> The
>
> people that actually vote is a small subset of the people that
> will
>
> be
>
> at the conference, but the conference should please the whole
>
> audience.
>
> I for example prefer developer centric talks. I don't care
> much about
>
> talks that are about "I've used this and that open source
>
> technology
>
> to
>
> do x and y" or about INSPIRE. Though there are probably quite
> a few
>
> people from institutions that don't yet use an open source stack
>
> or
>
> want
>
> to learn how to leverage open source when they need to meet the
>
> INSPIRE
>
> goals. It would be valuable to have such presentations. This is
>
> what
>
> the
>
> LOC is for, they can make the call to include those as well.
>
> Another example which is a bit artificial, it's about popular
>
> presenters. Let's take Paul Ramsey as an example, he's one of the
>
> best
>
> speakers I've ever been to at conferences. If he would submit 10
>
> talks,
>
> probably all of them would get voted by the community (being
> it due
>
> to
>
> great abstracts or to know that Paul is presenting). But of course
>
> you
>
> don't want to have one person doing to many talks.
>
> And finally the problem of people trying to abuse the public
> vote (or
>
> have friends that try it). You can filter those out sometimes,
>
> but
>
> would
>
> you then publish the filtered results or the raw data?
>
> Though I think it's good to have this discussion. These
> thoughts have
>
> previously only in my brain and never written down. So it
> hopefully
>
> helps for future conferences to improve the process.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Volker
>
> On 05/23/2013 06:51 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>
> > Given the fierce responses, I will think twice about ever
> making a
>
> suggestion on a selection process for FOSS4G again. Sorry to have
>
> spend my time on this.
>
> >
>
> > Bart
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> > On May 23, 2013, at 1:59 AM, Bruce Bannerman
>
> <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au <mailto:B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>
> <mailto:B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>
> <mailto:B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au%3e>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Thanks Volker.
>
> >>
>
> >> Agreed.
>
> >>
>
> >> Can I suggest that if someone believes that they have a better
>
> process, that they volunteer for the LOC of the next international
>
> FOSS4G conference and try it then?
>
> >>
>
> >> Bruce
>
> >>
>
> >> ________________________________________
>
> >> From: foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> [foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org%3e>] On Behalf Of
> Volker
>
> Mische [volker.mische at gmail.com
> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>
> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>
> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com%3e>]
>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013 1:04 AM
>
> >> To: Bart van den Eijnden
>
> >> Cc: foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> <mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>;
> <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org%3e>>; Barry Rowlingson
>
> >> Subject: Re: [Foss4g2013] presentation selection
>
> >>
>
> >> Bart,
>
> >>
>
> >> I second the approach that was used by the LOC. It's similar to
>
> what was
>
> >> done in 2009 (when I was part of it).
>
> >>
>
> >> Barry described how they made the selection in detail. It is
>
> important
>
> >> that the way the decision was made is transparent, not the
>
> decisions
>
> >> themselves (it would take way to much to give a reason for
>
> every
>
> not
>
> >> accepted abstract).
>
> >>
>
> >> The LOC should make the final call and normally it's pretty
>
> close
>
> to
>
> >> what the community voted for (at least that was the case in
> 2009).
>
> >>
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Volker
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On 05/22/2013 04:58 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>
> >>> Barry,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> does this mean you don't have enough trust in the community
>
> voting that
>
> >>> they will filter out anything inappropriate?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I see this as an unnecessary and confusing step.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Best regards,
>
> >>> Bart
>
> >>>
>
> >>> --
>
> >>> Bart van den Eijnden
>
> >>> OSGIS - http://osgis.nl
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On May 22, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Barry Rowlingson
>
> >>> <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>
>
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>
>
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk
>
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>>
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk%3e%3e>> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Bart van den Eijnden
>
> >>>> <bartvde at osgis.nl <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>
> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>
>
> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>>
> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl%3e%3e>> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> But apparently the selection committee filtered out
> abstracts
>
> based
>
> >>>>> on the
>
> >>>>> words open and or free, which seems a weird and error-prone
>
> approach
>
> >>>>> to me.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> We did *not* purely filter out based on words.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> We looked at the title, short abstract, and long abstract.
>
> If
>
> from
>
> >>>> those items we could not see a free/open-source,
> open-data, or
>
> >>>> geospatial angle, we *thought carefully* about whether that
>
> should be
>
> >>>> included in the conference.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> My second talk was about GeoExt and since I thought since
>
> everybody knows
>
> >>>>> GeoExt is about open source, I did not mention those words
>
> explicitly
>
> >>>>> in my
>
> >>>>> abstract.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Yes, we have enough expertise on the panel to know our open
>
> source
>
> >>>> packages. Anything we didn't know, we looked up. However we
>
> can't look
>
> >>>> up something omitted from an abstract...
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Someone had a great abstract on big data, but it wasn't
>
> selected
>
> >>>>> because it can be used with both open source software and
>
> closed source
>
> >>>>> software, and it's not about open data specifically.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> An abstract that doesn't mention any open geospatial
> technology
>
> could
>
> >>>> well be about doing analysis in ArcGIS or Oracle Spatial. Its
>
> not the
>
> >>>> committee's job to second-guess the presenter or ask the
>
> presenter for
>
> >>>> clarification - the abstract is space enough to provide
>
> clarity
>
> and
>
> >>>> full details.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> My personal opinion is
>
> >>>>> that if the general public wants to see this talk, it should
>
> not
>
> >>>>> matter if
>
> >>>>> the abstract contains the words free or open.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Again, we did not filter on the words. We took the totality
>
> of
>
> the
>
> >>>> submission and checked appropriateness for the Free and Open
>
> Source
>
> >>>> for Geospatial Conference, amongst the other criteria.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Also, if this is filtering would be done, it should be done
>
> *prior*
>
> >>>>> to the
>
> >>>>> community voting phase IMHO.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Personal opinion: there's no point - the outcome will be the
>
> same, it
>
> >>>> will just require a committee to review everything before
>
> and
>
> after
>
> >>>> the community voting. There were very few inappropriate
>
> submissions.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Can the selection committee elaborate on the approach they
>
> used?
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I think we've discussed this at great lengths on this and
> other
>
> >>>> mailing lists. Basically: First pass: include community vote
>
> top 100.
>
> >>>> Second pass: include committee vote top 100 (giving us ~130
>
> included).
>
> >>>> Discuss, eliminate anything inappropriate. Next pass:
>
> include
>
> lower
>
> >>>> ranked community votes. Next: lower ranked committee votes.
>
> Check for
>
> >>>> multiple submissions, similarities with workshop
> sessions, and
>
> make a
>
> >>>> decision on near-duplicates (which may include rejections,
>
> choices, or
>
> >>>> mergers). Keep going until coffee runs out or all slots
> filled.
>
> We did
>
> >>>> not run out of coffee.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I think fuller details will be posted to the lessons
>
> learned/cookbook
>
> >>>> wiki pages.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Barry
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>> Foss4g2013 mailing list
>
> >>> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
>
> >>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> Foss4g2013 mailing list
>
> >> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Foss4g2013 mailing list
>
> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
>
> --
>
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
> Istituto scienze della Terra
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>
> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14____
>
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09____
>
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
> <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
> <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
>
> _www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>_
> <http://www.supsi.ch/ist%3e_>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Conference_dev mailing list
>
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364
>
> (20130523) __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364
>
> (20130523) __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364
> (20130523)
>
> __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364
> (20130523)
>
> __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Foss4g2013 mailing list
>
> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
>
>
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8365
> (20130523) __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
>
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8365
> (20130523) __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130524/b6e7a885/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list