[Foss4g2009] RE: FOSS4G Presentation Info

[Harley Prowse]

All,

Yes this is fine.  Thanks for working through these issues. Simon, Volker and I were thinking this was the best resolution as well.  I have cc'd this to the public list as well so that everyone is aware of what is happening and the discussion.

So, Volker will not filter the presentations when voting opens on Monday and all 176 (so far, submissions have stayed open until voting as there have been a few late requests) will be available for voting.

We can adjust various wiki pages and the press release (draft press release 16 on wiki) to reflect this.  I will also email all the submitters on Monday to advise of voting and also the slight change in plans.

Regards

Harley



-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Erickson [mailto:tyler.erickson at mtu.edu] 
Sent: 14 June 2009 9:30 a.m.
To: Thierry Badard
Cc: jgr at di.uminho.pt; Harley Prowse; Cameron Shorter; Cameron Shorter
Subject: Re: FOSS4G Presentation Info

Thierry,

I am in agreement with your proposal.  It addresses my concerns and
preserves the standards of the peer-review process for the academic
track submissions.

Cheers,
Tyler


Thierry Badard wrote:
>
> Hi Tyler,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I understand your point and I will try in
> the following paragraphs to conciliate different elements mentioned in
> your email and the objectives that the academic track tries to achieve.
>
> As in many scientific conferences, abstracts are required 2 or 3 weeks
> before the submission of the full paper in order to know how many
> people are about to submit a full paper. Abstracts are usually not
> reviewed and selection is based only on full papers trough a blind
> peer review process in order to ensure a reliable selection process
> and to gather valuable contributions and high quality papers for
> publication in a reputed and wellknown journal or book serie. It
> ensures a high level of selection and hence increases the "scientific
> level" of the track, which tends to make this event a place where more
> and more academics should submit innovative and high quality
> contributions that are usually submitted in journals. Conferences
> based on abstract selection are no more considered in the curriculum
> vitae of a researcher by many universities (for advancement and
> selection of candidates), funding agencies, etc.
>
> As requested by many members of the academic community, the academic
> track has adopted this process in order to pursue these objectives and
> then make this track a more and more reputed scientific event where
> researchers should consider the submission of innovative and high
> quality papers while preserving the presentation of these works in the
> main FOSS4G conference. So it fosters the communication of these
> research works to a wider community and foster possible collaborations
> and further discussions between members stemming from different
> communities (academics, developers, decision makers, etc.).
>
> Nevertheless, I agree with you there is a risk for people who submit
> an abstract to the academic track to not be able to present their work
> even in the general track. So what can we do to minimise this risk?
> Based on your suggestion, here is what I propose:
>
> 1) Include the abstracts submitted to the academic track in the list
> of abstracts to be voted on.
>
> 2) Authors who submitted an abstract to the academic track should
> submit their full paper for review and selection.
>
> 3) a) If the paper is selected, presentation will be done in the
>       academic track and the paper be considered for publication.
>
>    b) If the paper is not selected but the abstract selected by the
>       public vote, the presentation will be done in the general track.
>
>    c) If the paper and the abstract are not selected, no presentation
>       will be performed.
>
> Is that OK for you, Tyler and Jorge?
>
> Harley, I know you do not plan to have the abstracts submitted to the
> academic track in the list of abstracts to be voted on. Is it Ok for
> you to have it included? And is it possible for you to include these
> abstracts on Monday?
>
> If all is OK, I will add a note in the call for papers on the wiki in
> order to clarify this point.
>
> I hope it helps.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Th.
>


-- 
Tyler A. Erickson, Ph.D.
Research Scientist, Michigan Tech Research Institute, and 
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Michigan Technological University
3600 Green Court, Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
W 83.6889°, N 42.3021° (WGS84) 
tyler.erickson at mtu.edu 
(734) 913-6846
http://people.mtri.org/tyler+erickson
http://www.mtri.org
http://www.michiganview.org