On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, andrea antonello
andrea.antone...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I would have another wish. Is there a way to understand how the
workshops were chosen.
I see important projects missing, whereas several have kind of
double or even triple workshops.
Given the few
Hi Barry,
The workshop selection process was handed to our workshop subcommittee
- I've asked them to respond to these issues here on the mailing list
and personally to you two if that's necessary.
thanks, an open answer is perfectly fine for me. I am not arguing, I
am just interested in
Hi all,
On 05/10/2013 09:06 AM, andrea antonello wrote:
Hi Barry,
The workshop selection process was handed to our workshop subcommittee
- I've asked them to respond to these issues here on the mailing list
and personally to you two if that's necessary.
thanks, an open answer is perfectly
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Peter Baumann
p.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
+1 here. I believe this should not be a Postgres event (substitute Postgres by
your favorite), but allow to gather folks from as many domains as possible.
This
would mean to give space to as many projects as
On 5/10/13, Barry Rowlingson b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, andrea antonello
andrea.antone...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I would have another wish. Is there a way to understand how the
workshops were chosen.
I see important projects missing, whereas several
I concur with Markus.
I was also surprised to see none of our GeoNetwork related workshops
represented although they were always well received at previous conferences. It
would have been nice if we'd had feedback on the reasoning behind that.
Considering about half the national INSPIRE
Hi all,
As a previous FOSS4G chair I would just appeal to everyone to go easy on
the organizing team. I was not involved in the selection process this time
but I do know there was a high number of workshops that were submitted, so
unfortunately half the submitters are going to be disappointed and
+10, the workshops selection is always contentious, and there are
always people disappointed, since the number of slots is so limited.
It's a difficult part of the organizing process to make and stand by
those decisions. I'm glad Barry is working on his optimization
algorithm, so we can finally
Hey all,
Congratulations and good wishes to the organizers of FOSS4G 2013, and
many thanks for all the hard work. I'm sure the attendees
(unfortunately, probably not me) will benefit greatly. This critique is
not actually directed towards you; it is towards all of us and probably
really for
On 5/10/13 12:25 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Adrian Custer wrote:
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
alternative way forwards.
I
On 10 May 2013 18:40, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/10/13 12:25 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Adrian Custer wrote:
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the
While KML ESRI Restful are two cases of OGC potentially ratifying a non-OGC
developed standard, and the situations worth comparing, I think there are two
important differences. At least as I understand the situation.
1. KML was already open, widely used supported by multiple
As an attendee (rather than presenter) of FOSS4G workshops, I note that several
I consider of value are not there, while some that are not of interest to me
(yes - a PERSONAL opinion :-) are.
I'm not saying the organisers have made a mistake, it may well be I'm just way
out in left field. But
@ Jeroen and other workshop proposers who were not selectedThe workshop team have already apologised for a comms slip up which meant that we published the workshop selections without sending out the acceptance/rejection mails first. As the conference chair let me add my apology to theirs, we had
14 matches
Mail list logo
