Hi, I have long debated with myself if I should say something or if I should just not participate at FEniCS 15 but in the end I felt I had to speak up.
I was disappointed last Friday to receive a rejection to give a presentation at the FEniCS 15 conference. I always enjoyed this conference in the past and felt it was a safe and constructive environment. So I was a bit shocked that I was rejected based on reviewer comments stating that my work has no influence on the FEniCS/Firedrake technology and being only an application built on top of FEniCS or that I had not made enough progress in the last year to present. These are unfair and generic comments. You could argue this about most developments by claiming that they are "just an application" or that not "enough" progress was achieved. Additionally to these unclear reviewer comments, I did not understand that there even was a pending decision on whether the contribution was categorised as a poster or as a presentation. This should have been made clear from the beginning. Now, it seems more like an emergency solution to me. I understand that it is a challenge to schedule the high number of presentations but forcing people into presenting posters with negative comments is the wrong way to go about solving this challenge. What message does this send and what atmosphere does this create? Would it not be possible to schedule the presentations in a different way (e.g. shorter time-slots per presentation, or different presentation time-frames) and give everyone a chance to speak? Best wishes, Susanne Claus
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
