[Foss4g2013] Foss4g2013 Digest, Vol 10, Issue 2

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Fri May 10 16:08:52 PDT 2013 

@ Jeroen and other workshop proposers who were not selected

The workshop team have already apologised for a comms slip up which meant that we published the workshop selections without sending out the acceptance/rejection mails first. As the conference chair let me add my apology to theirs, we had intended to send out the mails before we pushed the button to publish the program, it was a case of left and right hands.

The team made their selections on the basis of the content in the abstracts, they spent a lot of time trying to select from approx 60 workshops, inevitably 40 odd were going to be disappointed. We also reviewed 230 plus presentations and had to say no to about 60. A dozen people spent 2 days in a face to face meeting working flat out to get to the program selection and then a whole load more work went into the tagging and publishing. It isn't realistic to expect us to explain in individual detail why we chose not to select each of 100 workshops and papers.

There are definitely lessons to be learnt from the workshop selection process and we will try to capture our thoughts on this in the wrap up.

I think we have got a fantastic program for the conference. I hope that, even though we could not incorporate every proposal submitted, you and the community will agree

Cheers
____________
Steven





FOSS4G 17-21 September 2013 in Nottingham

On 10 May 2013, at 17:37, foss4g2013-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:

> Send Foss4g2013 mailing list submissions to
> 	foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	foss4g2013-request at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	foss4g2013-owner at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Foss4g2013 digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham Update
>      (Jeroen Ticheler)
>   2. Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham Update (Peter Batty)
> 
> From: Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham Update
> Date: 10 May 2013 17:33:14 BST
> To: Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com>
> Cc: "foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org" <foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
> 
> 
> Hi Peter,
> Open processes also have open discussions and although I think we all agree we should go easy on LoC's I have a problem with you asking us to not discuss selection criteria as a follow up on emails coming from LoC members. I've taken this off the Discuss list to the foss4g2013 list though, because I think it is an important discussion but not necessarily on the wider Discuss list.
> 
> That said, I also think we have the right and reasons to be informed on reasons for turning down proposals, or in absence of that to ask questions or start discussions about selection criteria. 
> 
> I can only speak for my own business, but I'm convinced others have similar thoughts. Organizing workshops and presentations is good for us, as it is good for those that participate. At least that is what we strive for. We invest a lot in giving them, both in terms of energy as well as in actual money. We support OSGeo, FOSS4G, open source projects, students et cetera. As commercial entities we're all in the same boat here. I just notice an imbalance in project and company representation. I won't have to explain that Barry's comment on high value workshops for free then causes a fire to start ;-) 
> 
> My 2 cents, cheers,
> Jeroen
> 
> On 10 mei 2013, at 17:31, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As a previous FOSS4G chair I would just appeal to everyone to go easy on the organizing team. I was not involved in the selection process this time but I do know there was a high number of workshops that were submitted, so unfortunately half the submitters are going to be disappointed and think that the committee made the wrong the choice.
>> 
>> Barry also stated that he wasn't involved in workshop selection, so you really shouldn't all be reading lots into his side comment that the workshops present good value - my interpretation is that was just a general comment that was Barry's opinion and nothing to do with selection criteria.
>> 
>> Also the reality is that there are so many submissions that you can't give specific reasons to everyone who was rejected why they didn't make it - this would hugely increase the already large amount of time that all these volunteers are putting into creating a FOSS4G event, and make a difficult process even more difficult.
>> 
>> Just a few thoughts as a previous organizer :) 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net> wrote:
>> I concur with Markus.
>> I was also surprised to see none of our GeoNetwork related workshops represented although they were always well received at previous conferences. It would have been nice if we'd had feedback on the reasoning behind that. Considering about half the national INSPIRE geospatial catalogs in Europe run on the product I consider it a relevant OSGeo product. Reading the thread, I note we should also put up a page with high GeoNetwork workshop fees instead of always providing them for free at FOSS4G conferences. I may actually start to consider that ;-)
>> Jeroen
>> 
>> On 10 mei 2013, at 10:12, Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 5/10/13, Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, andrea antonello
>> >> <andrea.antonello at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Also I would have another wish. Is there a way to understand how the
>> >>> workshops were chosen.
>> >>> I see important projects missing, whereas several have kind of
>> >>> "double" or even "triple" workshops.
>> >
>> > Yes, surprising also for me.
>> >
>> >>> Given the few available slots, I would have expected more
>> >>> differentiation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would be really keen to understand the process, if there is a simple
>> >>> way to do so.
>> >>
>> >> The workshop selection process was handed to our workshop subcommittee
>> >> - I've asked them to respond to these issues here on the mailing list
>> >> and personally to you two if that's necessary.
>> >>
>> >> The balance looks quite good to me, where there is duplication it
>> >> seems to be different aspects of the same project - Postgis Intro and
>> >> Postgis 3d have different audiences, for example. Its possible that
>> >> other projects weren't represented in the proposals which would
>> >> explain their absence.
>> >
>> > While I submitted an advanced GRASS GIS 7 workshop, I didn't even
>> > receive a 'your proposal was not considered' notification.
>> > A bit sad for a cofounder of OSGeo and participant of the first ever
>> > FOSS4G Conf 2004 in Bangkok.
>> >
>> >> There are a few workshops from OpenGeo, but if
>> >> you go to their website and see how much they charge for commercial
>> >> training, you might see this as us giving people the opportunity to
>> >> get some great training cheaply from some great trainers.
>> >
>> > ... well, not a convincing argument.
>> >
>> >> Anyway, our Workshop Team will address these issues later.
>> >
>> > Better sooner :)
>> >
>> > Markus
>> > (FOSS4G trainer since 1996)
>> >
>> >> Barry
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Discuss mailing list
>> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham Update
> Date: 10 May 2013 17:37:06 BST
> To: Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
> Cc: "foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org" <foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
>     Peter.
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Open processes also have open discussions and although I think we all agree we should go easy on LoC's I have a problem with you asking us to not discuss selection criteria as a follow up on emails coming from LoC members. I've taken this off the Discuss list to the foss4g2013 list though, because I think it is an important discussion but not necessarily on the wider Discuss list.
> 
> That said, I also think we have the right and reasons to be informed on reasons for turning down proposals, or in absence of that to ask questions or start discussions about selection criteria. 
> 
> I can only speak for my own business, but I'm convinced others have similar thoughts. Organizing workshops and presentations is good for us, as it is good for those that participate. At least that is what we strive for. We invest a lot in giving them, both in terms of energy as well as in actual money. We support OSGeo, FOSS4G, open source projects, students et cetera. As commercial entities we're all in the same boat here. I just notice an imbalance in project and company representation. I won't have to explain that Barry's comment on high value workshops for free then causes a fire to start ;-) 
> 
> My 2 cents, cheers,
> Jeroen
> 
> On 10 mei 2013, at 17:31, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As a previous FOSS4G chair I would just appeal to everyone to go easy on the organizing team. I was not involved in the selection process this time but I do know there was a high number of workshops that were submitted, so unfortunately half the submitters are going to be disappointed and think that the committee made the wrong the choice.
>> 
>> Barry also stated that he wasn't involved in workshop selection, so you really shouldn't all be reading lots into his side comment that the workshops present good value - my interpretation is that was just a general comment that was Barry's opinion and nothing to do with selection criteria.
>> 
>> Also the reality is that there are so many submissions that you can't give specific reasons to everyone who was rejected why they didn't make it - this would hugely increase the already large amount of time that all these volunteers are putting into creating a FOSS4G event, and make a difficult process even more difficult.
>> 
>> Just a few thoughts as a previous organizer :) 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net> wrote:
>> I concur with Markus.
>> I was also surprised to see none of our GeoNetwork related workshops represented although they were always well received at previous conferences. It would have been nice if we'd had feedback on the reasoning behind that. Considering about half the national INSPIRE geospatial catalogs in Europe run on the product I consider it a relevant OSGeo product. Reading the thread, I note we should also put up a page with high GeoNetwork workshop fees instead of always providing them for free at FOSS4G conferences. I may actually start to consider that ;-)
>> Jeroen
>> 
>> On 10 mei 2013, at 10:12, Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 5/10/13, Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, andrea antonello
>> >> <andrea.antonello at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Also I would have another wish. Is there a way to understand how the
>> >>> workshops were chosen.
>> >>> I see important projects missing, whereas several have kind of
>> >>> "double" or even "triple" workshops.
>> >
>> > Yes, surprising also for me.
>> >
>> >>> Given the few available slots, I would have expected more
>> >>> differentiation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would be really keen to understand the process, if there is a simple
>> >>> way to do so.
>> >>
>> >> The workshop selection process was handed to our workshop subcommittee
>> >> - I've asked them to respond to these issues here on the mailing list
>> >> and personally to you two if that's necessary.
>> >>
>> >> The balance looks quite good to me, where there is duplication it
>> >> seems to be different aspects of the same project - Postgis Intro and
>> >> Postgis 3d have different audiences, for example. Its possible that
>> >> other projects weren't represented in the proposals which would
>> >> explain their absence.
>> >
>> > While I submitted an advanced GRASS GIS 7 workshop, I didn't even
>> > receive a 'your proposal was not considered' notification.
>> > A bit sad for a cofounder of OSGeo and participant of the first ever
>> > FOSS4G Conf 2004 in Bangkok.
>> >
>> >> There are a few workshops from OpenGeo, but if
>> >> you go to their website and see how much they charge for commercial
>> >> training, you might see this as us giving people the opportunity to
>> >> get some great training cheaply from some great trainers.
>> >
>> > ... well, not a convincing argument.
>> >
>> >> Anyway, our Workshop Team will address these issues later.
>> >
>> > Better sooner :)
>> >
>> > Markus
>> > (FOSS4G trainer since 1996)
>> >
>> >> Barry
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Discuss mailing list
>> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b70ee1e7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: going badge100x100.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2013/attachments/20130511/b70ee1e7/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Foss4g2013 mailing list