[Foss4g2010] Community Program Review

[Lorenzo Becchi]

good idea Oscar:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2010_Lessons_Learned

And thanks Vasile!

lorenzo

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Óscar Fonts <oscar.fonts.lists at gmail.com>wrote:

> Vasile,
>
> Add it in the wiki as 'lessons learned' for next years conferences. :)
>
>
>
> El 07/05/2010, a las 8:31, Vasile Craciunescu <
> vasile.craciunescu at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>  I agree with you. It's good to know even for posters witch are the most
>> interesting titles from attendances perspective. Anyway, for practical
>> reasons, I think the two categories of abstracts should be somehow
>> differentiated (or placed on different pages). For example, on the review
>> page, the voters are asked to vote for a reasonable number of titles. This
>> is a good thing for oral presentations, where you have a psychical limit in
>> the number of presentations a participant can attend, but this limit don't
>> apply to posters, where a participant can see all the presentations during
>> the breaks.
>>
>> Vasile
>>
>> Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
>>
>>> it is anyway important to us to know which are the most interesting
>>> abstract.
>>> We are planning special treatments for the most populars.
>>> lorenzo
>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>> The abstract database I was given didn't distinguish between
>>>> submission types. I agree that it would be good to not have rankers
>>>> also wade through poster abstracts. If I can get a list of abstract
>>>> identifiers for poster submissions, I can hide those from the list of
>>>> abstracts people are shown.
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Vasile Craciunescu
>>>> <vasile.craciunescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Community Program Review page is truly great. Only one thing
>>>>> confuses
>>>>> me. It seems that the abstracts for poster are mixed with abstracts for
>>>>>
>>>> oral
>>>>
>>>>> presentation. I'm confused because there is no sign of distinction
>>>>>
>>>> between
>>>>
>>>>> this two type of proposals. On the other hand, the poster section on
>>>>> FOSS4G2010 website (http://2010.foss4g.org/presentations_posters.php)
>>>>>
>>>> says:
>>>>
>>>>> "Acceptance: Posters will be accepted "first come, first served" until
>>>>>
>>>> there
>>>>
>>>>> is no more room or the deadline passes."
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, what's the point in evaluating the poster proposal?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Vasile
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2010/attachments/20100512/c4e9fc4f/attachment.html