[Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham Update

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Dear all,
my personal opinion (that may count nothing but maybe could help for the
future):

1- I would expect a personal message with reason for not been selected:
because one reason must exist otherwise it would have been selected
2- I would like to know the evaluation criteria (all the points that have
been evaluated), and if they were not in place for this selection (and they
should be in my opinion) I would expect for next conferences to know how a
workshop is going to be evaluated (transparency!!)
3- I see key OSGeo projects missing from training (GRASS and GeoNetwork as
an example): maybe you should reserve some slots for OSGeo Projects, some
for Sponsors, and some for new projects

Best wishes,
Maxi


Il giorno 10/mag/2013 19:06, "Barry Rowlingson" <
b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> ha scritto:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jeroen,
> >
> > I'm not saying there shouldn't be any discussion, but I do think far too
> > much is being read into Barry's comment on high value workshops. I think
> it
> > was an offhand comment, and as Barry said he wasn't involved in workshop
> > selection.
>
>  Yes. Note that value is not just cost. Cheap and expensive courses
> can both be poor value. I did say "great training cheaply from great
> trainers" to emphasise this.
>
>  As a conference committee we are strongly encouraged to use the
> "Lessons Learned" pieces that previous conference organisers write up.
> Today I've reviewed those and the role of community input in workshop
> selection over the past few FOSS4Gs.
>
>  In 2009, the organisers got adventurous and tried a fairly open
> review process, but seemed dissatisfied with it:
>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2009_Lessons_Learned#Workshops
>
> and indeed the "Lesson learned" seems to be:
>
> "refine the selection criteria" and "I would then perform the
> selection myself" which seems pretty clear cut. There would be no
> community review.
>
> The 2010 and 2011 lessons pages are pretty skinny on workshop process.
> 2007 and 2008 both did a small committee plus local group final
> decision process which mirrors ours.
>
>
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2013 mailing list
> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2013/attachments/20130511/76f64c5b/attachment.html>