Dear Susanne,
I am very sorry to hear that you are not planning on attending FEniCS
'15 this year, I was very much looking forward to seeing you
again.
At SIAM CSE this year, there was approximately 300 posters and the
poster sessions was one of the highlights of the conference: they were
extremely enjoyable, interesting and constructive. I easily believe
that this also can be the case for the poster session at FEniCS this
year and in years to come, and I am looking forward to being a part of
it myself (as a small contributor to the dolfin-adjoint poster). Could
you somehow be persuaded to change your mind about contributing?
Disclaimer: I have had absolutely nothing to do with the organization
of FEniCS '15 this year.
Best,
Marie
--
Marie E. Rognes, PhD
Head of Department
Biomedical Computing Department
Simula Research Laboratory
P.0.Box 134, 1325 Lysaker, Norway
http://home.simula.no/~meg/
Skype: m.e.rognes
Cell: +47 45 66 23 96
On 05/11/2015 01:19 PM, Claus, Susanne wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
