[FOSS4G-Oceania] Motion: extended, targeted call for papers if needed

[adam steer]

just looking at the timeline, a 2 week CFP and 1 week review would mean
finalising the general program and the academic track at about the same
time.

cheers

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 10:26, adam steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Sarah has some great points. We can be brave and say ‘well, we
> didn’t get what we expect, so we have N slots available for a round 2 CFP,
> which is open only for women’
>
> The strategy we would employ is this:
>
> - Open a second call for papers, be open about our failure to attract a
> speaker cohort that reflects the community in the first round.
> - As Sarah suggested, specify how many speaker slots we would make
> available for this round
> - As Sarah suggested, make first round community results available at the
> same time to inform second round voters**
>
> How would we mitigate against delays? Squish everything a bit timewise. I
> mean the community voting round is really long - we could examine first
> week results and see what our mix would be if we made a call based purely
> on that. And the second vote needs only be a week long.
>
> If we acted *now*, we’d be able to reduce time delays to a few days or a
> week, which is OK in my mind.
>
> What do the women on this list feel about being focussed on as per a
> specific CFP and community vote?
>
> **We could further restrict the vote to women - talks by women, for women?
> Why not? effectively we arguably right now have talks by men for men :D
>
> Yes, it’s unfair. It’s also unfair to not be able to walk the streets of
> Dar Es Salaam (or any city) safely on your own; it’s unfair to be told what
> you’re interested in; and many other things. Forum panels etc are great -
> but talking is one thing; and we need to *do*.
>
> Cheers
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 08:10, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, I don't want to just drop this topic, but I'm not seeing a clear &
>> actionable motion out of this. Adam, I understand you're pushing for an
>> extended CFP, but I think we need more clarity on exactly what actions are
>> being proposed, and how they could result in a different outcome than what
>> we already have.
>>
>> Before I personally vote for such an action, I'd want to know what
>> strategies we'd be employing, beyond what we've already done, to strive for
>> a better outcome.
>>
>> A separate community vote is easy to set up, but I don't think I'm in
>> favour, I feel it draws a lot of attention to a very small number of people
>> who might be uncomfortable being identified as a special group.
>>
>> Also, there are timelines in place (for selections, publishing program,
>> etc), changing them has knock-on effects, I'm not opposed to adjusting but
>> a motion to produce an extended CFP will require us to take a look at these.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>
>
> --
> Adam Steer
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
> http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0046-7236
> +61 427 091 712
> skype: adam.d.steer
> tweet: @adamdsteer
>


-- 
Adam Steer
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712
skype: adam.d.steer
tweet: @adamdsteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/attachments/20180907/9565c390/attachment.html>