[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bart van den Eijnden bartvde at osgis.nl
Tue Oct 2 04:34:12 PDT 2012

One thing I really disliked in the past is that the size of abstracts really differed and abstracts were sometimes really large. 

Please limit people to a small and to-the-point abstract, at least for the voting process.

Best regards,

Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS - http://osgis.nl

On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Volker Mische <volker.mische at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/02/2012 11:24 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> With my "simple maths" hat on:
>>> Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think about,
>>> and provide a ranking.
>>> Total review time = 300 minutes = 6 hours.
>>> Best not to complicate the review process thus increasing review time.
>> Agreed - and if I was presented with a big list of 150 abstracts and
>> 150 radio buttons from -2 to +2 I'd get to about 20 before giving up.
>> However, a system that presented random pairs of abstracts or names
>> and asked simply "which would you like to see?", then took a "this
>> one/that one/dont know" response (with big fat buttons to easily
>> click), and then presented another pair would enable reviewers to 'dip
>> in' and do a bit more reviewing at any time.
>> Its the "kitten war" method: http://kittenwar.com/
> IIRC, the abstracts were always in random order, so that even if
> everyone did a subset things should work out fine.
> Cheers,
>  Volker
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20121002/7107a769/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list