[Foss4g2009] RE: FOSS4G Presentation Info

Sat Jun 13 20:39:17 EDT 2009

I like the idea, I guess I could add such a field. But I would wait
until the presentations are selected. I.e. asking for adding their
coords with the "your presentation was accepted"-mail (as people are
happy and perhaps more motivated to add their coords).

Cheers,
  Volker

Harley Prowse wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2009 mailing list
> Foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009