-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, I support whatever the program committee comes up with. If they want to have a blind review and not have names there, great. If it does not work out the next committee can do it in a different way.
This is not to cut off the discussion which I think is good to have so please keep it coming. But in the end it is the responsibility of the committee to take a decision and when they have done it I will support it, no matter what. Well, almost no matter what. :-) And I really support the committee to take decisions to make sure that the program is well balanced, no matter what the "community" says. This is why we have a committee. If we'd want to have a completely "community" driven (whatever that beast is) conference we'd hook up slideshare and play the most popular ones. What a bore. Cheers, Arnulf On 01/17/2013 10:04 PM, Fawcett, David (MPCA) wrote: > The Program Committee had a healthy discussion about the pros and > cons of structuring the community review process so that > presentations are evaluated solely on the title and abstract > description. We decided as a group that the potential positives > outweighed the potential negatives. > > > > The community review process is an important part of the selection > of presenters, but it is not the only input. The Program Committee > will use that data along with their own review of the abstracts, > knowledge of the speakers, the number of presentation slots, > expected makeup of the registrants, and other factors to put > together the best program that we can for FOSS4G NA 2013. > > > > It would actually be interesting if we could test to see if this > review methodology had any effect on who submitted abstracts. That > may best be accomplished by surveying the people who submit them. > > > > We haven’t discussed it as a committee, but I personally don’t > think that it is productive to publish the results of the community > review and will push to not do that. At the same time, if someone > has concerns about how decisions are made, they should talk to us. > The Program Committee is made up of some great people who represent > various parts of the FOSS4G community. > > > > We are working hard, and our only agenda is to make this the best > FOSS4G event ever. If anyone feels that they have a perspective > that is missing from the committee, we would be happy to have them > join the committee. > > > > David. > > > > > > *From:*discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org > [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce > Bannerman *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:17 PM *To:* Cameron > Shorter; discuss@lists.osgeo.org *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] > FOSS4G North America - Blind voting [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > > > Cameron, > > Agreed. > > As has been discussed in similar threads, and as we found for > Sydney, it helps the LOC determine relative popularity of > presentations for room allocation. > > However, perhaps the actual final results do not need to be > published. > > Presenters are either accepted or they’re not, after deliberation > by the LOC. > > There is no need to establish a popularity contest. > > Bruce > > > On 18/01/13 6:24 AM, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 17/01/13 03:58, David William Bitner wrote: >> Additionally following advice from other events as well as many >> members of our community, we are making the community review >> process for presentation submission author anonymous as a concern >> with how we have done this in the past has been the fear that >> many folks have of feeling publicly shamed with critique and >> voting of their proposals. These are only two small steps that we >> are taking to addressing an environment in the overall open >> source world that by the numbers is very unwelcome to women and >> other groups (while there have not been any overt issues that I >> know of as part of any FOSS4G, if you look at the percentage of >> female conference goers or developers in our community, we do >> have a long ways to go). > > David, If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting blind > voting on abstracts without knowing who will be presenting it? I've > heard that blind auditions has been successfully applied to > recruitment for orchestras, (which makes sense), however I don't > think it is applicable for Open Source communities. > > You see, in selecting Open Source presentations, I think it is > very important to know who will be presenting, almost as important > as the presentation content itself. This is because the presenters > who will have the most insightful content, and who will attract the > most audience are usually those who have built up a large, very > public reputation, (as leaders of open source communities, usually > with a long history of insightful emails, blogs, and IRC trails). > > I appreciate the importance of being welcoming to all communities. > In fact, I think that successful Open Source communities are > naturally welcoming as they have managed to attract developers and > community. However, I don't think that blind voting is right for > us. > > -- 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 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing > list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > - -- Seven of Nine http://arnulf.us/Seven Exploring Body, Space and Mind -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlD4fjQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0KXgCfdPQFE3nNo7hTpfQc/S7P53g+ kwQAmgKrzb5WKpkM7ZAqS/fbc4qIhpu5 =r92m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss