I believe that for the general program, we should publish both the
presenter and abstract. Reasons:
1. I'm attracted to a talk by both the topic and the presenter. I'm more
likely to listen to a talk by someone who has a deep knowledge of a
topic, which typically equates to someone with a big reputation.
2. And I think it is appropriate that people who have committed much
time to the Open Source community, and hence have built up a big
reputation, are allowed to be recognised by the selection community.
3. It also makes good business sense to the FOSS4G conference, as big
names on the program will likely attract more delegates, and will likely
have the delegates going away satisfied that they have seen
presentations that they wanted to see.
4. The alternative of only seeing an abstract when voting is that anyone
who can write a good abstract can potentially present on a topic, even
if they don't have a deep insight in the topic of interest.
On 2/10/2012 4:59 AM, Schlagel, Joel D IWR wrote:
I believe anonymous reviews has a place as a component of paper selection - as
a compliment to editorial review and professional judgement. FOSS4G
conference is the number one marketing opportunity for the OSGEO community. We
should make a deliberate effort to have a balance between inward focused
technical / developer oriented presentations and outward focused policy /
success / benefit type good news presentations.
-joel
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
behalf of Paul Ramsey [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Volker Mische
Cc: osgeo-discuss
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G presentation review process
I'm in favour too. It has potential, let's see how an anonymous
community process works in practice.
P.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Volker Mische <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
On 10/01/2012 06:10 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
In our bid for FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham, we didn't precisely say how we
intended to select presentations for the main track of the conference.
Some discussion amongst the committee has been going on, and we think
it necessary to informally poll the community to get a feel for what
method is preferred.
Previous FOSS4Gs have not used anonymous reviews (note: the Academic
Track will be a double-blind review process, we are discussing the
main conference presentations here), and have used a blend of
committee reviews and community reviews. Note that even with a
numerical ranking system its normally still necessary to do a manual
step to get a balanced conference.
The big change we could do would be to have anonymous community
reviews. Proposals would be rated based on title and abstract only.
The arguments for this include:
* selection is on quality of proposal rather than bigness of name
* rating procedure can prevent up-votes from whoever has the most
followers on twitter
* promotes inclusivity:
http://2012.jsconf.eu/2012/09/17/beating-the-odds-how-we-got-25-percent-women-speakers.html
and against arguments include:
* some names are big draws, and it would be disappointing to not have
someone because their abstract wasn't that exciting.
* previous FOSS4Gs have used non-anonymous reviewing and that worked
fine. Why change it?
* it may be hard to distil an exciting talk into an abstract without
losing the excitement.
So, as this would be quite a change for FOSS4G, what do you - the
OSGeo community at large - think? I do have a google poll nearly ready
on this, but lets have a bit of a debate here and maybe it won't even
be necessary.
I think an anonymous selection process makes a lot of sense. I
personally always hoped that people don't do a "please up-vote me"
campaigns on blogs or Twitter, but it happened. It will still be
possible as people could publish the titles of the abstract, but I hope
this won't happen and everyone will play along nicely.
One thing we have to keep in mind, that this conference is different
from the JSConf.eu. The JSConf.eu is about the bleeding edge an what's
hot in the fast changing JavaScript world. The audience are definitely
non-beginners. At the FOSS4G the audience is way more wide-spread. It
ranges from beginners to absolute pros. Hence there are also talks that
are kind of the same every year. Things that come to my mind are my own
talks, which are always about GeoCouch, or the "State of ..." talks.
They have a place, but you'd know upfront the the "State of GeoServer"
e.g. is done by one of the big names of GeoServer and respectively a
talk mentioning GeoCouch is probably me. What I want to say is, you
can't fully prevent that people up-vote well known names.
Of course there still needs to be the review process by the programm
committee that makes the final call, so that we e.g. don't have 5 talks
from the same person.
To conclude: I'm in favour of trying it and seeing how it works.
Cheers,
Volker
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
