[Foss4g2009] RE: FOSS4G Presentation Info

[Harley Prowse]

Shoaib,

Most have included a bio as part of the submission.  Getting a location is a good idea - we could make a map ;-).  However, I don't really want to have to deal with 150+ emails with location details, so the only way I can think we could do this efficiently would be to add the ability to the Django submission site to receive the location info.  I would expect that not all authors will log back in to provide the details. Is it worth trying at this point, or have we missed our opportunity - thoughts? 

Harley



-----Original Message-----
From: Shoaib Burq [mailto:saburq at gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 June 2009 12:16 p.m.
To: Harley Prowse
Cc: Tyler Erickson; Thierry Badard; jgr at di.uminho.pt; foss4g2009-Public; Cameron Shorter
Subject: Re: [Foss4g2009] RE: FOSS4G Presentation Info

Harley if you are emailing could do u think we could request a bio and
location pref in WKT format ?
Alternatively we can do it after votes r in

On Sunday, June 14, 2009, Harley Prowse <HarleyP at geobiz.co.nz> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>