I see your point and the problem of handling so many submissions. I don't know how I would have handled it.
Anyway, I really look forward to the poster session which is a nice addition to this year's meeting. -- Anders mån 11 maj 2015 kl 15:56 skrev David Ham <[email protected]>: > Hi Anders, > > I'd just like to reiterate that no presentations at FEniCS '15 were > rejected. (However I did indicate to one prominent member of the FEniCS > community that, given how busy it was likely to be, it was unlikely that a > comedy talk would be selected for oral presentation - so I'm afraid there's > no zombies (that I know about!)). > > I share your aim to make FEniCS an open and welcoming venue. All that's > happening is that as we grow, we have to find new ways of fitting everyone > in effectively. > > Regards, > > David > > On Mon, 11 May 2015 at 14:08 Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with Susanne that everyone should feel welcome at the FEniCS >> meeting. My view is that we should not reject any talks, unless they are >> completely crazy and perhaps not even then... Kent's zombie-talk is one of >> the highlights of our meetings so far. :-) >> >> At the same time: this year's meeting has been outsourced to our >> friends at Imperial and I don't want to tell them how to run the show. >> >> I hope I'll see you in London Susanne! >> >> -- >> Anders >> >> mån 11 maj 2015 kl 14:53 skrev Claus, Susanne <[email protected] >> >: >> > Dear Marie, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. >>> I was very much looking forward to seeing you too. >>> I still have not made a definite decision about my attendance. >>> >>> I would really like to see you and others. >>> >>> Like you mentioned, I am sure that a poster session can be very good >>> and constructive. >>> What I am struggling with is the way contributors were sorted into oral >>> presenters and poster presenters for FEniCS 15 through a non-transparent >>> review process with negative comments that gave contributors no choice and >>> made the poster session a session of participants that were rejected for >>> presentations. >>> >>> I am sure that like me a lot of other participants might consider not >>> to attend the conference because of how their contribution was handled. >>> There must be a better solution. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Susanne >>> >>> From: Marie <[email protected]> >>> Date: Monday, 11 May 2015 12:36 >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [FEniCS] FEniCS 15 Rejection >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> [email protected]http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
