[Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Conf] presentation selection [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Massimiliano Cannata
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Thu May 23 07:20:35 PDT 2013
HI,
Karel I completly agree with you: other conferences less expensive and even
bigger provide such "service"
Maxi
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Karel Charvat <charvat at ccss.cz> wrote:
> 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<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<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><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><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>
> >****
>
> [foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org****
>
> <mailto:foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org><foss4g2013-bounces at lists.osgeo.org%3e>]
> On Behalf Of Volker****
>
> Mische [volker.mische at gmail.com <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com><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 <foss4g2013 at lists.osgeo.org>>; <
> conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org****
>
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org><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 <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>>*
> ***
>
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>**
> **
>
> <mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>><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 <bartvde at osgis.nl>>**
> **
>
> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl <bartvde at osgis.nl> <
> mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>> <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<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<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<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<massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
> >****
>
> ** **
>
> _www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>_****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> 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) __________****
>
> 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****
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2013****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8365
> (20130523) __________
>
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz****
>
>
>
> __________ Informace od ESET Smart Security, verze databaze 8365
> (20130523) __________
>
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2013 mailing list
> 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
*www.supsi.ch/ist*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2013/attachments/20130523/62100f14/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Foss4g2013
mailing list