On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman b.banner...@bom.gov.au wrote:
Agreed.
Well said Cameron, with the aside that there may be an interesting talk from
a previously little known person.
I suggest leaving this to the discretion of the LOC and interested parties
who subscribe to
Hi,
I have to make distance analysis in Grass software. Can anyone provide me
help in this regard how to use these command.; if possible, can anyone
contact me and give me a demo on how to execute the task.
My main objective of using Grass GIS is to determine the minimum distance
between
On 2/10/2012 5:05 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
With my statistician hat on, and not speaking as a member of the
committee, it seems that we have two processes going on - what sounds
like a good talk, and who sounds like a good speaker. Maybe we should
run two review systems - one with*just*
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Cameron Shorter
cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote:
With my simple maths hat on:
Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think about,
and provide a ranking.
Total review time = 300 minutes = 6 hours.
Best not to complicate the review
On 10/02/2012 10:05 AM, Muhammad Noman wrote:
Hi,
I
have to make distance analysis in Grass software. Can anyone
provide me
help
in this regard how to use these command.; if possible, can
anyone
contact
me and give me
On 10/02/2012 11:24 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Cameron Shorter
cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote:
With my simple maths hat on:
Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think about,
and provide a ranking.
Total review time = 300 minutes =
One thing I really disliked in the past is that the size of abstracts really
differed and abstracts were sometimes really large.
Please limit people to a small and to-the-point abstract, at least for the
voting process.
Best regards,
Bart
--
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS - http://osgis.nl
On
Hi all,
I don't agree. I like the idea of having the community vote on the
abstracts only and then the organising committee can make the call of
adding some some big names to draw the expected attention to the
conference. They may even use some abstract that wasn't voted that much,
but the
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Volker Mische volker.mis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I don't agree. I like the idea of having the community vote on the
abstracts only and then the organising committee can make the call of
adding some some big names to draw the expected attention to the
On 10/02/2012 01:43 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Volker Mische volker.mis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I don't agree. I like the idea of having the community vote on the
abstracts only and then the organising committee can make the call of
adding some some big
Hi Volker,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Volker Mische volker.mis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Markus,
does it means you against a public voting in general? Or against one
which includes names? Or do you like the idea of a public voting which
only contains the abstracts but nothing else?
I
I fully agree with Cameron on this one. Our development and
discussions are sufficiently open that any anonymous person providing
the community with valuable contributions can become the next big
name, or at least big enough to be selected by the current selection
process.
regards,
thomas
On
On 10/2/12 3:05 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman b.banner...@bom.gov.au wrote:
(snip)
it seems that we have two processes going on - what sounds
like a good talk, and who sounds like a good speaker.
(snip)
Beyond that, there is the question of
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com wrote:
Just picking the 'good' talks may lead the conference to once again have
many talks about the same projects that have come to dominate and fewer
talks from new talent.
Therefore picking talks only on the individual
For those who might be interested, I've attached info for the upcoming MIL-OSS
working group conference
14-16 October 2012
Washington DC
signup and info:
http://mil-oss.org/wg4
http://groups.google.com/group/mil-oss
http://mil-oss.org/
___
On 2/10/2012 9:34 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
One thing I really disliked in the past is that the size of abstracts
really differed and abstracts were sometimes really large.
Please limit people to a small and to-the-point abstract, at least for
the voting process.
+1
It is important
16 matches
Mail list logo
