[Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Conf] presentation selection [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Thu May 23 06:43:49 PDT 2013

It depends on number of volunteer- revivers, usually every reader has
responsibility for certain papers and he is making comments. Such number is
high, but not enormous> Some conferences have more

Karel

From: b.j.kobben at utwente.nl [mailto:b.j.kobben at utwente.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:10 PM
To: charvat at ccss.cz; volker.mische at gmail.com
Cc: foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org; conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org;
b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Conf] presentation selection
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

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> 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;

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] On Behalf Of Volker 

Mische

Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:03 PM

To: Massimiliano Cannata

Cc: foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org; <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%3e> >> 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%3e> >> 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>

     [foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org

     <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
<mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org%3e> >] On Behalf Of Volker

     Mische [volker.mische at gmail.com <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com
<mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com%3e> >]

     >> 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>; <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org

     <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org%3e> >>; 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%3e%3e> >>> 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%3e%3e> >>> 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>

     >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013

     >>

     >> _______________________________________________

     >> Foss4g2013 mailing list

     >> 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>

     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>

_www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist%3e_> >_

_______________________________________________

Conference_dev mailing list

Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org

http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

__________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8364 

(20130523) __________