Looks good to me -- I added a link to the open definition as you
suggested Claudia.
That made me think that perhaps there should be a short note under
"Submission Details" that open as defined in the open definition is
one of the factors of the review process?
Thanks
~Jordan
On 2 Nov 2009, at 14:06, Claudia Mueller-Birn wrote:
Hi *,
Wow, good progress. I was just little time offline :-) Thank you
Jonathan, Sören, and Rufus.
Okay, I had a look on the different sites and here are my comments:
First question. If I use this link: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/ and
then try to go back to the page, I end here http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp
Is it just to keep the page "invisible" until it is finished?
On Oct 31, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
2009/10/30 Jonathan Gray <[email protected]>:
Hi all,
I've made some edits to the OKCon 2010 call for proposals (copied
below), and propose we get this out ASAP!
Great work Jonathan.
I've got some changes to the announce. some I've mentioned below but
I've mostly just gone and edited the the wiki:
http://wiki.okfn.org/okcon/2010/cfp/
What do you think, if we link the call (i.e. the term in the call)
to the Open Knowledge definition (http://www.opendefinition.org/).
Another minor detail is that the submission details appeared before
the submission dates etc. I changed the order.
# Open Knowledge Conference 2010: Call for Proposals
I suggest here we have our standard bullet points here:
* when: Saturday 24th April 2010
* where: London, UK
* website: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/
* last year: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/2009/
I think this a very good idea. Well, but I couldn't find the last
bullet point? Well, if this was just a suggestion then I vote for
it :-)
## Introduction
This looks a big improvement but could do with a bit more sharpening.
I've edited direct on the wiki page ...
[...]
I'd like to discuss the order of the topics. At the moment it is:
1. Technology
2. Law, Society and Democracy
3. Culture and Education
4. Science and Research
If technology is the most important topic at this conference then
fine, but the introduction gives (at least me) another impression.
What do you think?
## Important Dates
This should at or near the top ....
* Submission deadline: December 15th 2009
* Reviewing and discussion period: December 15th 2009 - January
31th 2010
* Notification of acceptance: January 31th 2010
* Camera-ready papers due: February 31th 2010
* Research track at OKCon: April 2010
I think so too! Another possibility would be to split or copy it.
For example the submission deadline could be part of the header
(when, where etc.) and then the all submission details are at the
same position as now.
[...]
Okay, about the submission template. Maybe it is a bit over-
engineered but what do you think if we adapt a professional template
such as IEEE, ACM or Springer? At the moment, only the structure is
given, but wouldn't be nice to have one consistent layout? Well,
please tell me your plans with the proceedings? Will there be a
website with all papers or do we provide are open access book or ...?
What is about the logo? I had a look on the poll and I think we have
one finalist. :-) Shouldn't we this include in the call?
In my point of view is the paper length unbalanced. Short papers
should have 2- 4 pages and full papers 5-10 pages. Well, what do you
think about full papers with 6 - 8 pages?
And finally for our internal organization: Maybe a list would be
appropriate with an overview about who will send the CfP to which
mailing list.
Well, these are my few comments.
Greetings from lovely Pittsburgh,
Claudia
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
