[FOSS4G2016] [Program] Trim down meeting: annual project reports

Thu Apr 14 02:54:05 PDT 2016

Hi Gert-Jan,

On 04/14/2016 11:41 AM, Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl) wrote:
> 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.

I have no idea if it was discussed, but I give every OSGeo project at
least one slot, as it's an OSGeo conference.

> 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.

I don't think it influences the score much (at least not in my votes). I
would rate them high anyway. Though (as mentioned above), even it they
wouldn't get voted highly, I would still give a slot.

But that's exactly those things we'll clarify on Friday in the meeting.

Cheers,
  Volker

> [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