[Foss4g2011] Re: [Foss4g2011-private] RE: Academic Track Call for Abstracts

[Jeroen Ticheler]

I agree, short presentations force the presenter to focus on what he really wants to get across. 15+5 is great, maybe add 5 mins for walking between sessions.
Jeroen

On 3 feb 2011, at 01:21, Geoff Zeiss wrote:

> Probably heretical, but why not make everything 20 mins to maximize # session, minimize # parallel tracks.
> Where 2 used to have 3, 7 and 14 mins time slots and no parallel sessions
> Geoff
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: foss4g2011-private-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <foss4g2011-private-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> To: Moreno, Rafael <Rafael.Moreno at ucdenver.edu>
> Cc: 'Songnian Li' <snli at ryerson.ca>; 'maria.brovelli at diiar-topo.polimi.it' <maria.brovelli at diiar-topo.polimi.it>; foss4g2011 at lists.osgeo.org <foss4g2011 at lists.osgeo.org>; 'Serena Coetzee' <scoetzee at cs.up.ac.za>; Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>; Muller,	Brian <Brian.Muller at ucdenver.edu>; 'Helena Mitasova' <hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu>; 'song.osgeo at gmail.com' <song.osgeo at gmail.com>; 'foss4g2011-private' <foss4g2011-private at lists.osgeo.org>; 'Thierry Badard' <Thierry.Badard at scg.ulaval.ca>
> Sent: Wed Feb 02 16:03:39 2011
> Subject: Re: [Foss4g2011-private] RE: Academic Track Call for Abstracts
> 
> I personally think 15 minutes is fine, but my attention span may be shorter than others.  I haven't been running between sessions though, so I'm probably not the best judge.  I'd rather rather pack in more speakers.
> 
> On 2011-02-02, at 10:35 AM, Moreno, Rafael wrote:
> 
>> Helena, Venka, everyone,
>> I agree that 30 min is probably too long.  
>> 
>> The point of the 30 min length was to make the academic track presentations compatible with the general session presentations allowing people to rotate between presentations easily.
>> 
>> The feedback we got at the LOC was that in past years people had hard time attending general session presentation and then trying to go to an academic track presentation because they were out of sync. Has this been your experience?
>> 
>> Hence, we discussed that 30 min is probably too long and 15 min probably too short (2 academic track presentations per 30 min block). 
>> 
>> Tyler M., Peter, everyone comments? 
>> 
>> Thank you
>> Rafael
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _____________________________________
>> Rafael Moreno, Ph.D.
>> Department of Geography and Environmental Studies
>> University of Colorado Denver
>> Campus Box 172 P.O. Box 173364
>> Denver, CO 80217-3364
>> Phone: 303-352-3762
>> Fax: 303-556-6197
>> Personal website: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~rmoreno/
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Helena Mitasova [mailto:hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:20 AM
>> To: Venkatesh Raghavan; foss4g2011 at lists.osgeo.org
>> Cc: Moreno, Rafael; 'foss4g2011-private'; Muller, Brian; 'Tyler Erickson'; 'Serena Coetzee'; 'Thierry Badard'; 'Jeff McKenna'; 'Songnian Li'; 'maria.brovelli at diiar-topo.polimi.it'; 'song.osgeo at gmail.com'
>> Subject: Re: Academic Track Call for Abstracts
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> i am still not in favor of 30 minutes slot for each paper.
>> 
>> I have already expressed many times my opinion that, 
>> given the advances in presentation technology,
>> and my 20+ years of experience going to several conferences per year
>> 20 minute slots for presentations in both regular and academic sessions is plenty
>> of time to get through your message and showcase what you are doing, especially
>> given that this is annual event so we mostly hear from the same people each year.
>> This reduces the number of concurrent sessions or gives more people chance to talk -
>> any of it is beneficial.
>> 
>> But it looks like most organizing committees think that 30 min slots for talks
>> are absolutely necessary so I have pretty much given up the fight and I am speaking up again
>> only because Venka has raised the issue. So I just wanted to let you know
>> that I still support shorter, 20min slots (15+5 or 18+2 talk and discussion) for the talks
>> but it is the program committee that makes the decision, so I am OK with whatever 
>> length they chose,
>> 
>> Helena
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foss4g2011-private mailing list
>> Foss4g2011-private at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2011-private
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2011-private mailing list
> Foss4g2011-private at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2011-private
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2011 mailing list
> Foss4g2011 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2011

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3749 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2011/attachments/20110207/b2ab119b/smime.bin