[Foss4g2010] Re: Starting preparation for technology comparison presentations

Tue Apr 27 18:41:05 EDT 2010

Although we had this discussion already, I happy to repeat myself :)

I think 30 mins is great: one slot 3 talks, 1.5h, that's easy to
remember. To the length itself: I've used it as 20mins presentation + 5
mins discussions + 5 mins for people to change rooms. Especially in the
conference centre in Sydney those 5 mins to change the room
were/would've been great as some rooms where downstairs.

And indeed a lot of people did change rooms during the slots.

Cheers,
  Volker.

Cameron Shorter wrote:
> +1 to shorter talks.
> 
> I'd even be supportive of reducing general presentation slots from 30
> mins down to 20 minutes. (15 mins presentation + 5 mins questions and
> handover).
> 
> Definitely keep lightening talks - they were very well received at
> FOSS4G 2009.
> 
> On thinking about it further, for the comparison projects (with
> exception of maybe the WMS shootout), I don't think they will have grown
> to have enough depth in one year to justify more than one standard
> presentation slot. This may change by 2011.
> 
> Helena Mitasova wrote:
>> I already expressed my view on this issue many times and yes, Tyler we
>> already had this discussion and I very much agree with Tyler. I go to
>> many conferences and I must say that the shorter presentations work
>> better - on-line papers are more suitable for for delivering complex,
>> detailed information (for many reasons, especially if you are looking
>> at a lot of numbers or equations).
>>
>> Just as an example: recently I was at a conference with 30-40 min
>> presentations by highly regarded speakers in the field followed by
>> 5-10 min lightning talks highlighting some new exciting developments.
>> The general agreement after the conference was to reduce the long
>> plenaries and include more short talks, I hope we will follow similar
>> trend with this conference and give more people opportunity to speak,
>>
>> Helena
>>
>>
>> Helena Mitasova
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
>> North Carolina State University
>> 1125 Jordan Hall
>> NCSU Box 8208
>> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
>> http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/
>>
>> email: hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu
>> ph: 919-513-1327 (no voicemail)
>> fax 919 515-7802
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not personally in favour of talks longer than 30 minutes, no
>>> matter what topic and even most of the plenaries.  It encourages
>>> people to keep to their points and talk straight to the matter. 
>>> That's what attendees expect and most presenters won't lament having
>>> to be succinct.
>>>
>>> Greater than 30 minutes gets boring fast (or is it just me?) and the
>>> odds are that in a plenary session there are still lots of people who
>>> really don't care about the topic, but just show up since the tracks
>>> are shut down.  So mixing it up so more topics get presented (with
>>> shorter spots) helps keep more people interested and will help draw
>>> them to the plenary instead of drifting out because one topic
>>> dominates the session.  If it's a topic the deserves more
>>> presentation time, then do a part #2 in the normal sessions to finish
>>> it off for the audience that really wants it.
>>>
>>> I'm not referring specifically to the WMS shootout or live dvd
>>> presentation, but I think the principles could apply well there too.
>>> Naturally, the lightning talks are very appealing since it keeps
>>> things moving, interesting and comes in chewable sized portions.
>>>
>>> Sorry if this was discussed before, but thinking of sitting through a
>>> couple 60 minutes presentations made me panic.  I'll retract my
>>> position for any sponsor who needs 60 minutes to be able to fund the
>>> event though ;-)
>>>
>>> Tyler
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/27/2010 06:56 AM, Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
>>>> If they are really cool as the wms shootouts we can remove lightening
>>>> talks...
>>>> With Jeff we have decided to reserve one hour for the Wms benchmarks
>>>>
>>>> Lorenzo
>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Apr 2010 01:03, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lluis,
>>>>> There was an email to the WMS Shootout benchmarking list today
>>>>> suggesting that they should start putting together tests soon if they
>>>>> are going to get presentations put together in time for foss4g.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested to know what comparative presentations have already
>>>>> been identified to be presented at foss4g, and which will go through
>>>>> the competitive selection process.
>>>>>
>>>>> My reasoning is that as soon as a comparative presentation has been
>>>>> selected, we are in a position to lobby people to help create the
>>>>> presentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I right in understanding that the Organising Committee have already
>>>>> committed to a LiveDVD overview during the plenary session? Note, I
>>>>> think that we should only dedicate 60 minutes to this overview instead
>>>>> of 90 minutes. I would like to make it even shorter (maybe 45 mins),
>>>>> although I'm not sure if that will be possible. I'd like to keep the
>>>>> presentation very high level, and leave details to other presentations
>>>>> (like the technology comparison presentations).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also of note, it will be difficult to squeeze some of the comparative
>>>>> presentations in 30 minutes. The FOSS4G 2009 WMS shootout lasted 47
>>>>> mins. The WMS Shootout made part of the final plenary session, and if
>>>>> the other comparative projects are ranked highly enough by the
>>>>> community, you may consider making them plenary sessions too. (I
>>>>> realise this will be a difficult decision, as one plenary session
>>>>> removes 6 streamed sessions.)
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foss4g2010 mailing list
>>>> Foss4g2010 at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foss4g2010 mailing list
>>> Foss4g2010 at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foss4g2010 mailing list
>> Foss4g2010 at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010
> 
> 