[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process

Mon Oct 1 16:36:31 PDT 2012

I believe that for the general program, we should publish both the 
presenter and abstract. Reasons:
1. I'm attracted to a talk by both the topic and the presenter. I'm more 
likely to listen to a talk by someone who has a deep knowledge of a 
topic, which typically equates to someone with a big reputation.

2. And I think it is appropriate that people who have committed much 
time to the Open Source community, and hence have built up a big 
reputation, are allowed to be recognised by the selection community.

3. It also makes good business sense to the FOSS4G conference, as big 
names on the program will likely attract more delegates, and will likely 
have the delegates going away satisfied that they have seen 
presentations that they wanted to see.

4. The alternative of only seeing an abstract when voting is that anyone 
who can write a good abstract can potentially present on a topic, even 
if they don't have a deep insight in the topic of interest.

On 2/10/2012 4:59 AM, Schlagel, Joel D IWR wrote:
> I believe anonymous reviews has a place as a component of paper selection - as a compliment to editorial review and professional judgement.    FOSS4G conference is the number one marketing opportunity for the OSGEO community.  We should make a deliberate effort to have a balance between inward focused technical / developer oriented presentations and outward focused policy / success / benefit type good news presentations.
>
> -joel
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Paul Ramsey [pramsey at opengeo.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: Volker Mische
> Cc: osgeo-discuss
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process
>
> I'm in favour too. It has potential, let's see how an anonymous
> community process works in practice.
>
> P.
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Volker Mische <volker.mische at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 10/01/2012 06:10 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>>> In our bid for FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham, we didn't precisely say how we
>>> intended to select presentations for the main track of the conference.
>>> Some discussion amongst the committee has been going on, and we think
>>> it necessary to informally poll the community to get a feel for what
>>> method is preferred.
>>>
>>> Previous FOSS4Gs have not used anonymous reviews (note: the Academic
>>> Track will be a double-blind review process, we are discussing the
>>> main conference presentations here), and have used a blend of
>>> committee reviews and community reviews. Note that even with a
>>> numerical ranking system its normally still necessary to do a manual
>>> step to get a balanced conference.
>>>
>>> The big change we could do would be to have anonymous community
>>> reviews. Proposals would be rated based on title and abstract only.
>>> The arguments for this include:
>>>
>>>   * selection is on quality of proposal rather than bigness of name
>>>   * rating procedure can prevent up-votes from whoever has the most
>>> followers on twitter
>>>   * promotes inclusivity:
>>> http://2012.jsconf.eu/2012/09/17/beating-the-odds-how-we-got-25-percent-women-speakers.html
>>>
>>> and against arguments include:
>>>
>>>   * some names are big draws, and it would be disappointing to not have
>>> someone because their abstract wasn't that exciting.
>>>   * previous FOSS4Gs have used non-anonymous reviewing and that worked
>>> fine. Why change it?
>>>   * it may be hard to distil an exciting talk into an abstract without
>>> losing the excitement.
>>>
>>> So, as this would be quite a change for FOSS4G, what do you - the
>>> OSGeo community at large - think? I do have a google poll nearly ready
>>> on this, but lets have a bit of a debate here and maybe it won't even
>>> be necessary.
>> I think an anonymous selection process makes a lot of sense. I
>> personally always hoped that people don't do a "please up-vote me"
>> campaigns on blogs or Twitter, but it happened. It will still be
>> possible as people could publish the titles of the abstract, but I hope
>> this won't happen and everyone will play along nicely.
>>
>> One thing we have to keep in mind, that this conference is different
>> from the JSConf.eu. The JSConf.eu is about the bleeding edge an what's
>> hot in the fast changing JavaScript world. The audience are definitely
>> non-beginners. At the FOSS4G the audience is way more wide-spread. It
>> ranges from beginners to absolute pros. Hence there are also talks that
>> are kind of the same every year. Things that come to my mind are my own
>> talks, which are always about GeoCouch, or the "State of ..." talks.
>> They have a place, but you'd know upfront the the "State of GeoServer"
>> e.g. is done by one of the big names of GeoServer and respectively a
>> talk mentioning GeoCouch is probably me. What I want to say is, you
>> can't fully prevent that people up-vote well known names.
>>
>> Of course there still needs to be the review process by the programm
>> committee that makes the final call, so that we e.g. don't have 5 talks
>> from the same person.
>>
>> To conclude: I'm in favour of trying it and seeing how it works.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>    Volker
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
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