[FOSS4G2016] [Program] Trim down meeting: annual project reports
Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)
gert-jan at osgeo.nl
Thu Apr 14 02:41:23 PDT 2016
Hi Volker,
Since a lot of the abstracts concern a state-of-the-project of osgeo
projects:
I know that sometime, somewhere we discussed whether all the osgeo
projects (as listed on [1]) were expected to present their annual
state-of-the-project at FOSS4G.
Don't know whether we discussed in within the LOC, or that I had this
discussion with OSGeo board members.
Anyway: does this influence our scores for the 280+ abstracts: do we
give the annual report/state-of the project submissions a bye to advance
to one of the 180 available slots.
regards,
Gert-Jan
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/
Volker Mische schreef op 14-04-2016 8:10:
> Hi Steven,
>
> that's almost the same process as 2014 [1], so it's good that we agree
> on that.
>
> Cheers,
> Volker
>
>
> On 04/13/2016 12:28 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>> I am late to this discussion, apologies if this is irrelevant.
>>
>> In 2013 we got each of the selection group to rank abstracts from 1 to
>> 100 put that into a spreadsheet alongside the community ranking and
>> then used that as a first basis for selecting talks. We then did a
>> second pass to avoid having individuals or companies having too many
>> speakers (not much change) and then a third pass to enable us to do
>> some grouping of talks (a few in and a few out at the margins).
>> Finally we had about 10 or 12 talks that we kept on standby until we
>> had confirmation from all of the accepted speakers that they intended
>> to present ( a few dropped out).
>>
>> It is worth having a few standby’s even after the programme is
>> published as you we had some infuriating let downs just before the
>> event.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2016, at 09:25, Volker Mische <volker.mische at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marco,
>>>
>>> we'll accept about 180, I still need to figure out the exact number.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Volker
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/13/2016 10:14 AM, Marco Minghini wrote:
>>>> Dear Volker and all,
>>>> I have almost finished reviewing the abstracts, so I have a quite
>>>> clear
>>>> picture of the topics. There are 280 abstracts in total.
>>>> I have a simple questions: how many should be accepted?
>>>> Thank you. Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marco Minghini, Ph.D.
>>>> GEOlab, Politecnico di Milano - Como Campus
>>>> via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como (Italy)
>>>> +39 031 3327540
>>>> marco.minghini at polimi.it <mailto:marco.minghini at polimi.it>
>>>> @MarcoMinghini <https://twitter.com/MarcoMinghini>
>>>>
>>>> 2016-04-13 10:09 GMT+02:00 Volker Mische <volker.mische at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:volker.mische at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gert-Jan,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the propositions. We'll group the talks once we know
>>>> which
>>>> one we want to have in the program and then might kick out ones
>>>> we
>>>> originally wanted or get some of the kicked ones in again if it
>>>> fits.
>>>>
>>>> As the tagging was done by the users, I'd just use them as a help
>>>> when
>>>> we look at the talks (it will be one huge spreadsheet). I left a
>>>> few
>>>> comments like "case study" to the case studies so that I remember
>>>> what
>>>> it was about when we group them.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>> On 04/13/2016 09:35 AM, Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi LOC and programm committee,
>>>>>
>>>>> A few thoughts after reviewing almost 50% of the abstracts (a
>>>>> "review
>>>>> mid-term review"):
>>>>> - Several functional themes (indoor mapping, routing, performance
>>>>> testing) have a few (about 5) abstracts sent in. I think it would
>>>>> be
>>>>> valueable to sort of group them together, so you get a cluster of
>>>>> 2-3
>>>>> talks on 1 theme, instead of "isolated" talks; Which may link to
>>>>> the
>>>>> "topic talks" idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Same goes for the talks on FOSS as a phenomonon: e.g. the talk
>>>> on the
>>>>> diff between : "free" and "open".
>>>>>
>>>>> - A larger amount of abstracts (at least 15-20) are about "the
>>>> state of
>>>>> project XYZ". More one-way trafic (with possibly a few explanatory
>>>>> questions afterwards) but less discussion, I suppose.
>>>>> Together they are the "exhibition space of FOSS4G projects"
>>>>>
>>>>> - Next we have a lot of "best practices" open source software (and
>>>> often
>>>>> open data) applied to solve a real life problem
>>>>>
>>>>> - This year we'll have a "hyde park speakers corner" where people
>>>> can do
>>>>> a short (5 min.) talk in an open theatre style. Abstracts that
>>>> don't fit
>>>>> in the regular program may find their way to this "speakers
>>>>> corner";
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @Volker: is it possible to make a few cross-tables based on the
>>>>> tags
>>>>> that have been suplied to the abstracts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert-Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Volker Mische schreef op 10-04-2016 23:41:
>>>>>> Hi Program-Committee,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not that many have filled out the Doodle yet [2], but I also
>>>> don't want
>>>>>> everyone to have block so many possible dates. As most people
>>>> have time
>>>>>> on Friday 2016-04-16 at 15:00 CEST we'll do the meeting there. I
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>> that many of you (even if you haven't filled out the Doodle) will
>>>> join.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is everyone OK with trying a Goggle Hangout together with using a
>>>> Google
>>>>>> Spreadsheet to do the review? If there are objections, please
>>>> send me an
>>>>>> email and propose alternatives. I'll try to find out if I can get
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> proper Hangout URL until Friday :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy reviewing till Thursday. Please be finished by then, so
>>>> that I can
>>>>>> do a final export on Friday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Volker
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/02/2016 03:35 PM, Volker Mische wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Program-Committee,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there's still time to review, but we should also agree on some
>>>> time to
>>>>>>> do the actual selection. The selection process will follow the
>>>> steps we
>>>>>>> did in 2014 [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose doing it the same way as in 2014, I'll prepare a Google
>>>>>>> Spreadsheet where I'll put the results. We will then take this as
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> basis for our discussions. We will then go through it via Google
>>>>>>> Hangouts/Skype/whatever you prefer. This means we need some time
>>>> where
>>>>>>> all of us have the time to do it. If someone can't participate,
>>>> that's
>>>>>>> not a big deal, but the more we are the better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've created a Doodle [2] so that we can easily find the best
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>> Please plan for about 3h of time (if you've less time, again, no
>>>>>>> worries, better help a bit than not at all :) So please fill out
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Doodle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will then of course be able to do the reviews until we have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> first meeting (I'll do a fresh export on the day of the meeting).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will then have a second meeting to group the talks together,
>>>> so it
>>>>>>> would be good if you have some time the week after :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>> http://2014.foss4g.org/abstract-review-process-for-foss4g-2014/
>>>>>>> [2]: http://doodle.com/poll/xriqs2asedmczdr9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Volker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>>>>>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>>>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
>>
> _______________________________________________
> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
More information about the FOSS4G2016
mailing list