[Foss4g2010] Presentations and posters

Volker Mische volker.mische at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 07:58:01 EST 2010 

The best answer to this email was already given previously in the
discussion by Paul, therefore I'll quote him:
Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Warning: Don't balkanize the academic track by choosing a different
> presentation format from the other content. If everything is
> consistent, the talks can be mixed and matched into rooms depending on
> expected *demand and interest* rather than artificial categories
> ("it's academic").

Even if we have a special room for the academic track, people might
still want to switch between sessions. This is not possible (or rather
really annoying) when they have a different length of talks.

Additionally, what would be the benefit of shortening the talks? Having
more room for non-academic talks? In 2009 there were way less academic
talks than non-academic ones (IRCC ~20 vs. ~180). Accepting almost all
academic submissions doesn't make sense either. And especially for the
academic track I'd prefer quality over quantity.

Cheers,
  Volker


Venka wrote:
> What I (and, guess many others on this list too) mean
> by "academic" is the "session" (or "track") that will
> have the presenters submit full paper (no just abstracts)
> which may be compiled and distribued on CD (or any
> media) during the conference. This was done in Cape Town.
> I do not know why this was not done in Australia. Maybe
> they put the papers on the conference website, I havent
> checked.
> 
> Participants working in universities, research institutes need
> their "papers" publish somewhere to justify their travel
> at their respective universities or labs. The "proceedings"
> of the full papers submitted will be peer-reviewed by the
> scientific committee. call for papers and getting the papers
> reviewed would be the job of the academic "session" (or "track")
> chairs. There were two "chairs" at FOSS4G2009 and 46 members in
> the "Scientific Committee"
> 
> Each "session" would run for 2 hours, I guess. I do not see any
> problem whatsoever in some sessions have 4 presenters with longer
> presentation and other (for example "academic sessions") have
> 6 presenter in a 2 hour "session"
> 
> More presentation, more diversity and more resgitrations!!
> Quality control would be the responsibility of the "track"
> chairs and the "Scientific Committee"
> 
> Best
> 
> Venka
> 
> 
> Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> Let me reiterate that treating academic as a "track" (with its own
>> room and own schedule) impoverishes both the academic and non-academic
>> conference participants. You're going to want to track popular topics
>> into big rooms and niche topics into small rooms, and whether the
>> topic is "academic" or not in origin is not necessarily going to
>> correlate with how popular it is. You might have a session consisting
>> of three talks, two that were vetted by the scientific committee and
>> another than came in the general presentation door.
>>
>> Don't make "track" be your unit of oganization, make "session". That
>> way (for example) the "postgis" session could include a general talk
>> by me, an professional user talk by simon and a numbers-heavy
>> benchmarking talk from someone in academe. There's two much variety in
>> our ecosystem to fit everything into 5 meaningful tracks, but there's
>> enough homogeneity to fit them into 25 meaningful sessions.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Lorenzo Becchi
>> <lorenzo at ominiverdi.com> wrote:
>>> wow, Cameron, interesting idea: 2 academic presentation in 30 mins,
>>> is it
>>> possible?
>>> what's the opinion of the director of the academic track?
>>> please remember what Cameron highlight about moving from one room to the
>>> other. The venue in Barcelona is big, it's all for us but we cannot
>>> grant
>>> that all your favorite presentations can stay in the same floor (AFAIK).
>>> lorenzo
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Lorenzo is right to try to match the academic and non-academic
>>>> tracks in
>>>> the program.
>>>> Attendees spend a lot of time moving between rooms to try and catch all
>>>> the presentations they want to see.
>>>>
>>>> We got feedback at foss4g 2009 along the lines of "it would have been
>>>> better if the rooms were closer".
>>>> So I suggest either keep the all presentations the same length, or
>>>> match 2
>>>> academic to 1 standard presentation.
>>>>
>>>> Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
>>>>> Paul, others,
>>>>> does it make sense to have three session per hour for both academic
>>>>> and
>>>>> not?
>>>>>
>>>>> The program is still flexible and this is the time to decide about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> we will decide inside the LOC about the 15+5 for academic, I don't see
>>>>> any major problem for the moment to approve it.
>>>>> It would be easier, IMO, if the program can be synchronized between
>>>>> academic and not to let people easily choose their own scheduling of
>>>>> presentations.
>>>>>
>>>>> lorenzo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Paul Ramsey
>>>>> <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
>>>>> <mailto:pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Warning: Don't balkanize the academic track by choosing a different
>>>>>    presentation format from the other content. If everything is
>>>>>    consistent, the talks can be mixed and matched into rooms
>>>>> depending on
>>>>>    expected *demand and interest* rather than artificial categories
>>>>>    ("it's academic").
>>>>>
>>>>>    Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>    P.
>>>>>
>>>>>    On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Venka <venka.osgeo at gmail.com
>>>>>    <mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>    > Helena Mitasova wrote:
>>>>>    >>
>>>>>    >> others may have different suggestion but how about making the
>>>>>    >> presentations 20min + 5 min for discussion which would allow
>>>>>    for more
>>>>>    >> presentations?
>>>>>    >>
>>>>>    >
>>>>>    > +1 for academic track. I would even suggest 15min+5 as in most
>>>>>    academic
>>>>>    > conferences where
>>>>>    > full paper proceedings are published.
>>>>>    >
>>>>>    > _______________________________________________
>>>>>    > Foss4g2010 mailing list
>>>>>    > Foss4g2010 at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>> Geospatial Systems Architect
>>>> 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

More information about the Foss4g2010 mailing list