[Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Conf] presentation selection [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
b.j.kobben at utwente.nl
b.j.kobben at utwente.nl
Thu May 23 06:10:10 PDT 2013
Any idea how much time putting "two three sentences" takes for > 300 abstracts?
Barend
On 23-05-13 14:09, "Karel Charvat" <charvat at ccss.cz<mailto:charvat at ccss.cz>> wrote:
Volker,
Usually it is similar on any conferences that it is done by volunteer. But
if there is publishing system put two three sentences and this automatically
distributed is not so big effort
Karel
-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Mische [mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Karel Charvat
Cc: 'Massimiliano Cannata'; foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>;
conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; 'Barry Rowlingson'
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Foss4g2013] presentation selection
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Karel,
I can again only speak of 2009, but back then the costs where there to cover
the venue and catering. There wasn't any money for the selection process. It
was mostly done in the freetime of the LOC members.
I agree that it would be cool to have such a feedback, but it would need
volunteers to do so.
Cheers,
Volker
On 05/23/2013 01:18 PM, Karel Charvat wrote:
Dear Volker, dear others,
I start follow discussion about selection process. I have to say, that
I am not very satisfied with Volkers last email.
Why? The FOSS4G fee is comparable with the costs for large scientific
conferences. And usually on these conferences authors are obtaining
any feedback. It is help for them not only for future, but it could
help also in future development. I think, that all this could be done
automatically with publishing system. I think, that the budget for this
has to be adequate.
Karel
-----Original Message-----
From: conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
[mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Volker
Mische
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:03 PM
To: Massimiliano Cannata
Cc: foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>; <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>;
Barry Rowlingson
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Foss4g2013] presentation selection
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Maxi,
sending back the results to the authors is really a lot of work. There
might be abstracts which are e.g. hardly understandable English. You
will just drop those without actually assign any relevance to them.
The time is of the LOC is really limited and making the selection
already takes hours (at least it was the case in 2009). Heaving even
more overhead would be to much.
Though perhaps it would make sense to have a chance to join the
selection process. So people who like to help out and to a thorough
review can do that.
Cheers,
Volker
On 05/23/2013 12:14 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
Hi,
I agree that votes are not a guarantee of real interest.
Suppose you work for a large company that submit an abstract, you
will easily have 100 votes of all the employees but this does not
mean all of them will go to the conference and that the vote was
"driven".
At the same time, I like open and clear evaluation criteria, this
avoid (or at least limit) the acceptance of talk by "friendship",
that also I believe occur.
Something like evaluation rating:
100 points maximum alssigned:
- 40 for voting rank
- 20 for foss4g project relevance
- 20 fro.... etc.
All the evaluation should then be sent back to the authors.
I Also would like to have some "inspiring" talk from people "outside"
(not only well know and great talker, than I like more content
respect to shows) to better understand: what others do? How do they see
OSGeo?
What next? etc.
And I would like to see rotation in successive FOSS4G as this is the
conference for the community, rather then for the novels to open
source that may have more opportunities to enter in contact with open
source in local events organized by local chapters... so I would like
to see CONTENT, NEWS, VISION rather then SHOWS and APPEAL.
Of course, this is only my 2 cents... ;-)
Maxi
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Volker Mische
<volker.mische at gmail.com<mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Bart,
I didn't want to be fierce, but explaining my experience. I
especially
felt like replying as you gave me a reality check quite often on
topics
where I had a completely different view in the past.
My problem with the community voting is, does it really reflect
what
the
community wants? I'm not saying the community is too stupid to
know
what
they really one and someone else needs to decide what's best. I think
the problem is the open voting. It's easy to get an bias in there.
The
people that actually vote is a small subset of the people that will
be
at the conference, but the conference should please the whole
audience.
I for example prefer developer centric talks. I don't care much about
talks that are about "I've used this and that open source
technology
to
do x and y" or about INSPIRE. Though there are probably quite a few
people from institutions that don't yet use an open source stack
or
want
to learn how to leverage open source when they need to meet the
INSPIRE
goals. It would be valuable to have such presentations. This is
what
the
LOC is for, they can make the call to include those as well.
Another example which is a bit artificial, it's about popular
presenters. Let's take Paul Ramsey as an example, he's one of the
best
speakers I've ever been to at conferences. If he would submit 10
talks,
probably all of them would get voted by the community (being it due
to
great abstracts or to know that Paul is presenting). But of course
you
don't want to have one person doing to many talks.
And finally the problem of people trying to abuse the public vote (or
have friends that try it). You can filter those out sometimes,
but
would
you then publish the filtered results or the raw data?
Though I think it's good to have this discussion. These thoughts have
previously only in my brain and never written down. So it hopefully
helps for future conferences to improve the process.
Cheers,
Volker
On 05/23/2013 06:51 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> Given the fierce responses, I will think twice about ever making a
suggestion on a selection process for FOSS4G again. Sorry to have
spend my time on this.
>
> Bart
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 23, 2013, at 1:59 AM, Bruce Bannerman
<B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au<mailto:B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> <mailto:B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Volker.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Can I suggest that if someone believes that they have a better
process, that they volunteer for the LOC of the next international
FOSS4G conference and try it then?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
<mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
[foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
<mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>] On Behalf Of Volker
Mische [volker.mische at gmail.com<mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013 1:04 AM
>> To: Bart van den Eijnden
>> Cc: foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
<mailto:foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>; <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>; Barry Rowlingson
>> Subject: Re: [Foss4g2013] presentation selection
>>
>> Bart,
>>
>> I second the approach that was used by the LOC. It's similar to
what was
>> done in 2009 (when I was part of it).
>>
>> Barry described how they made the selection in detail. It is
important
>> that the way the decision was made is transparent, not the
decisions
>> themselves (it would take way to much to give a reason for
every
not
>> accepted abstract).
>>
>> The LOC should make the final call and normally it's pretty
close
to
>> what the community voted for (at least that was the case in 2009).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> On 05/22/2013 04:58 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>> 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<mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>
<mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>
<mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk
<mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Bart van den Eijnden
>>>> <bartvde at osgis.nl<mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>
<mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foss4g2013 mailing list
>>> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foss4g2013 mailing list
>> Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
_______________________________________________
Foss4g2013 mailing list
Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto:Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013
--
*Massimiliano Cannata*
Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
Responsabile settore Geomatica
Istituto scienze della Terra
Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14____
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09____
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch<mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
_www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>_
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
__________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364
(20130523) __________
Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.cz
__________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364
(20130523) __________
Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.cz
__________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364 (20130523)
__________
Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.cz
__________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364 (20130523)
__________
Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.cz
_______________________________________________
Foss4g2013 mailing list
Foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org<mailto: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/20130523/55847d1c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Foss4g2013
mailing list