[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G North America - Blind voting [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Folks,
I support whatever the program committee comes up with. If they want
to have a blind review and not have names there, great. If it does not
work out the next committee can do it in a different way.

This is not to cut off the discussion which I think is good to have so
please keep it coming. But in the end it is the responsibility of the
committee to take a decision and when they have done it I will support
it, no matter what. Well, almost no matter what. :-)

And I really support the committee to take decisions to make sure that
the program is well balanced, no matter what the "community" says.
This is why we have a committee. If we'd want to have a completely
"community" driven (whatever that beast is) conference we'd hook up
slideshare and play the most popular ones. What a bore.

Cheers,
Arnulf

On 01/17/2013 10:04 PM, Fawcett, David (MPCA) wrote:
> The Program Committee had a healthy discussion about the pros and
> cons of structuring the community review process so that
> presentations are evaluated solely on the title and abstract
> description.  We decided as a group that the potential positives
> outweighed the potential negatives.
> 
> 
> 
> The community review process is an important part of the selection
> of presenters, but it is not the only input.  The Program Committee
> will use that data along with their own review of the abstracts,
> knowledge of the speakers, the number of presentation slots,
> expected makeup of the registrants, and other factors to put
> together the best program that we can for FOSS4G NA 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> It would actually be interesting if we could test to see if this
> review methodology had any effect on who submitted abstracts.  That
> may best be accomplished by surveying the people who submit them.
> 
> 
> 
> We haven’t discussed it as a committee, but I personally don’t
> think that it is productive to publish the results of the community
> review and will push to not do that.  At the same time, if someone
> has concerns about how decisions are made, they should talk to us.
> The Program Committee is made up of some great people who represent
> various parts of the FOSS4G community.
> 
> 
> 
> We are working hard, and our only agenda is to make this the best
> FOSS4G event ever.  If anyone feels that they have a perspective
> that is missing from the committee, we would be happy to have them
> join the committee.
> 
> 
> 
> David.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From:*discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce
> Bannerman *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:17 PM *To:* Cameron
> Shorter; discuss at lists.osgeo.org *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss]
> FOSS4G North America - Blind voting [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
> 
> 
> Cameron,
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> As has been discussed in similar threads, and as we found for
> Sydney, it helps the LOC determine relative popularity of
> presentations for room allocation.
> 
> However, perhaps the actual final results  do not need to be
> published.
> 
> Presenters are either accepted or they’re not, after deliberation
> by the LOC.
> 
> There is no need to establish a popularity contest.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> On 18/01/13 6:24 AM, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> On 17/01/13 03:58, David William Bitner wrote:
>> Additionally following advice from other events as well as many 
>> members of our community, we are making the community review
>> process for presentation submission author anonymous as a concern
>> with how we have done this in the past has been the fear that
>> many folks have of feeling publicly shamed with critique and
>> voting of their proposals. These are only two small steps that we
>> are taking to addressing an environment in the overall open
>> source world that by the numbers is very unwelcome to women and
>> other groups (while there have not been any overt issues that I
>> know of as part of any FOSS4G, if you look at the percentage of
>> female conference goers or developers in our community, we do
>> have a long ways to go).
> 
> David, If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting blind
> voting on abstracts without knowing who will be presenting it? I've
> heard that blind auditions has been successfully applied to 
> recruitment for orchestras, (which makes sense), however I don't
> think it is applicable for Open Source communities.
> 
> You see, in selecting Open Source presentations, I think it is
> very important to know who will be presenting, almost as important
> as the presentation content itself. This is because the presenters
> who will have the most insightful content, and who will attract the
> most audience are usually those who have built up a large, very
> public reputation, (as leaders of open source communities, usually
> with a long history of insightful emails, blogs, and IRC trails).
> 
> I appreciate the importance of being welcoming to all communities.
> In fact, I think that successful Open Source communities are
> naturally welcoming as they have managed to attract developers and
> community. However, I don't think that blind voting is right for
> us.
> 
> -- 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
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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
> 


- -- 
Seven of Nine
http://arnulf.us/Seven
Exploring Body, Space and Mind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlD4fjQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0KXgCfdPQFE3nNo7hTpfQc/S7P53g+
kwQAmgKrzb5WKpkM7ZAqS/fbc4qIhpu5
=r92m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----