[Foss4g2013] presentation selection

[Bart van den Eijnden]

Barry,

does this mean you don't have enough trust in the community voting that they will filter out anything inappropriate?

I see this as an unnecessary and confusing step.

Best regards,
Bart

-- 
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS - http://osgis.nl

On May 22, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
> 
>> But apparently the selection committee filtered out abstracts based on the
>> words open and or free, which seems a weird and error-prone approach to me.
> 
> We did *not* purely filter out based on words.
> 
> We looked at the title, short abstract, and long abstract. If from
> those items we could not see a  free/open-source, open-data, or
> geospatial angle, we *thought carefully* about whether that should be
> included in the conference.
> 
>> My second talk was about GeoExt and since I thought since everybody knows
>> GeoExt is about open source, I did not mention those words explicitly in my
>> abstract.
> 
> Yes, we have enough expertise on the panel to know our open source
> packages. Anything we didn't know, we looked up. However we can't look
> up something omitted from an abstract...
> 
>> Someone had a great abstract on big data, but it wasn't selected
>> because it can be used with both open source software and closed source
>> software, and it's not about open data specifically.
> 
> An abstract that doesn't mention any open geospatial technology could
> well be about doing analysis in ArcGIS or Oracle Spatial. Its not the
> committee's job to second-guess the presenter or ask the presenter for
> clarification - the abstract is space enough to provide clarity and
> full details.
> 
>> My personal opinion is
>> that if the general public wants to see this talk, it should not matter if
>> the abstract contains the words free or open.
> 
> Again, we did not filter on the words. We took the totality of the
> submission and checked appropriateness for the Free and Open Source
> for Geospatial Conference, amongst the other criteria.
> 
>> Also, if this is filtering would be done, it should be done *prior* to the
>> community voting phase IMHO.
> 
> Personal opinion: there's no point - the outcome will be the same, it
> will just require a committee to review everything before and after
> the community voting. There were very few inappropriate submissions.
> 
>> Can the selection committee elaborate on the approach they used?
> 
> I think we've discussed this at great lengths on this and other
> mailing lists. Basically: First pass: include community vote top 100.
> Second pass: include committee vote top 100 (giving us ~130 included).
> Discuss, eliminate anything inappropriate. Next pass: include lower
> ranked community votes. Next: lower ranked committee votes. Check for
> multiple submissions, similarities with workshop sessions, and make a
> decision on near-duplicates (which may include rejections, choices, or
> mergers). Keep going until coffee runs out or all slots filled. We did
> not run out of coffee.
> 
> I think fuller details will be posted to the lessons learned/cookbook
> wiki pages.
> 
> Barry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2013/attachments/20130522/68d93d83/attachment.html>