FOSS4G'13

The working site for the conference committee of FOSS4G 2013

Programme - stage 1: development

Last saved by Franz-Josef Behr on April 23, 2013

The working programme can be reviewed here (Google Doc):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmwShPAd7pU4dHFhWHdpYkgzOVBybnhSdmpqSWduZ0E#gid=0 ;
 
https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmwShPAd7pU4dHFhWHdpYkgzOVBybnhSdmpqSWduZ0E#gld=0 

Current programme committee: 
Steven Feldman
Jeremy Morley
Antony Scott
Rollo Home. 
(anyone else wishing to join, please let RH know)

1. History: The FOSS4G conference is billed as the 'meeting of the tribes' and has a result become an intense forum of debate/discussion focused (predominately) on the technical aspects of the OSGeo stable of products. (an interpretation that is open to discussion!). Previous events have (spontaneously) taken on the form of clusters around particular topics. The user/delegate is left to navigate these areas of interest without hindrance ('support'). A wonderfully collaborative and spontaneous environment for the initiated, a potentially intimidating and exclusive environment for the new-comer. How do we tread the fine line between the twin needs of providing a structure to the (massive) event without creating barriers to those who know what they require.

To this end it is proposed to provide a 'loose' structure to the conference that will act as guide to how the sessions will be grouped by stream and day. 

2. Structure
Tues 17th -  Sat 21st Sept. 2013
This committee is focused on Days 3 - 5 AND Workshops
Assuming a running programme similar to 2011, there are up to 9 (tbc, but that's what we put in our bid) parallel streams giving a total of 216 potential 30min sessions. ( https://basecamp.com/1920286/projects/762306-foss4g-13/uploads/3283170 )
None of the previous programmes offer any form of structure to the content:
2011 programme:  http://2011.foss4g.org/program 
2010 programme: (3 days):  http://2010.foss4g.org/program_print.php 
2009:  http://2009.foss4g.org/schedule/FOSS4G%202009%20Program.pdf 

3. Timeline
Defined in  https://basecamp.com/1920286/projects/762306-foss4g-13/uploads/2441193.
2011:  http://2011.foss4g.org/content/timeline 
Note: need to incorporate the Map Library into process.

4. Call for Papers
Review Academic CfP:  http://2013.foss4g.org/academic-track/call-for-papers/
Review 2011:  http://2011.foss4g.org/content/almost-300-abstracts-submitted-foss4g ;  http://2011.foss4g.org/content/call-presentations-under-way 

5. Selection methodology: It is proposed to use a variant of the 'geocom' approach,  to incorporate a community element. Need to resolve exact process and mechanics of this (tools).
- response method: simple 'input' on-line form (AGI #geocom tools)
- publish abstracts on-line for 'voting' by the community (select top 10)
- adopt #geocom selection process

Back-up list (to cover no-shows?)
- border line papers/reserve list
- identify speakers on site that can stand in

6. Themes for CFP:
Overall theme is Geo for All
All: Please add your ideas here:

7. Wording for CfP
Draft blurb for parent menu:
The FOSS4G programme will include around 200 papers (of which xx will be on the Academic Track), built around a number of themed tracks to help delegates pick out their areas of interest. In addition, there will be [number?] workshops providing more hands-on and focussed opportunities to use tools, discuss issues, and work together. The organising committee hopes that the overall theme of the conference, 'Geo for All', will encourage a big response to the Call for Papers, which has a deadline of 12th April 2013.



[FINAL - No more edits here please]


FOSS4G (Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial) is pleased to invite proposals for presentations and workshops for its 2013 conference to be held in Nottingham, UK (17-21 September). FOSS4G is the annual global gathering for those both currently or potentially working with open source geospatial software. It brings together a mix of developers, users, decision makers and observers from a broad spectrum of organisations and fields of operation for five days of workshops, presentations and discussions. This first Call for Papers invites proposals for presentations or workshops under the theme of 'Geo for All'.

 

Presentations and workshop may cover any aspect of the development and use of open source geospatial software: some suggestions are given below. In addition to catering for the existing FOSS4G community, attendance is being encouraged from anyone considering using open source and geospatial software for the first time. The organising committee is therefore keen to receive content which supports these delegates.  FOSS4G will, as always, be the premier showcase event for new applications, projects, case studies, business perspectives and training for free and open source geospatial software. We will also be supporting development and coding sessions for active projects.

 

Proposals are invited on any FOSS4G-related subject. However the following list may help to provide some guidance on areas likely to be of interest to delegates:

- Case Studies: Relate your experiences

- Benchmarks: Comparisons between packages

- Business Cases: building the economic case

- Visualization: effective presentation of information. There will also be a separate Call for Maps.

- Disaster Response: software, case studies, outcomes

- Development: new developments in your products

- Hacks and Mashes: novel solutions to all our problems

- Collaboration: data collection, data sharing, open standards,

- New data: handling new data models, for example 3D & temporal data, or big data


The conference programme will run in parallel tracks over five days. The paper and workshop proposals we receive will be judged by the programme committee and the FOSS4G community. From this the committee will shape a programme around the theme ‘Geo for All’ with structured tracks, designed to provide guidance on content to new and existing delegates. This will include two days of workshops providing hands-on training and in-depth discussion. 

 

Presentation sessions will be 30 minutes including questions and changeover, while workshops can take the form of 90 minutes (with no break), three hours (including a break), or six hours (including breaks and lunch).

 

Conference chair, Steven Feldman says “In the current economic climate, interest in open source geospatial solutions is stronger than ever, and the first FOSS4G in a European location since 2010 is likely to be well-attended, with around a thousand delegates expected. Several sponsors are already signed up and we will be announcing the first tranche of backers early in the New Year. With FOSS4G co-located in Nottingham with the AGI GeoCommunity, the UK’s premier annual geospatial gathering, and a conference theme of ‘Geo for All’, we’re expecting a fantastic week of all things geo.”

 

Full details of the submission process will be posted on the conference website at http://2013.foss4g.org/ early in January 2013. Significant dates to note for submissions are as follows (subject to final confirmation):

§  Close of Call for Workshops: 25th February 2013

§  Close of Call for Presentations: 12th April 2013

§  A first Call for Academic Papers with a deadline of 1st February 2013 has already been issued – see http://2013.foss4g.org/academic-track/call-for-papers/ for details.

§  A first Call for Maps will be issued in January 2013.

 

About FOSS4G

FOSS4G is organised by the Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo), with support from an all-volunteer organizing committee, and from the Association for Geographic Information (AGI).

[Note: make the references to OSGeo and the AGI links to the respective website front pages]

Comments

Rollo Home on November 13, 2012:

Propose a telephone/skype call Thursday 15th Nov. 5pm - ahead of Friday committee call. I think I can invite you both to our system...

Steven Feldman on November 15, 2012:

Apologies I've just stumbled on this so probs too late for a call

Rollo Home on November 15, 2012:

Steve, no problem. Jeremy will recap in tomorrows meeting and pose some pertinent questions to the committee for approval/comment/steer before we take action. I'm away tomorrow so send my apologies.
Sent using a mobile device; please excuse any erratic spelling.

Antony Scott on November 23, 2012:

Have updated the GSS (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmwShPAd7pU4dC13LUpaVGYzZ1U4U2I3RERfVUZNLXc&pli=1#gid=0) and the current website with date changes. What is the plan for sending an email round to the list(s) about the voting system - not sure who this is with?
Have put the workshop deadline at end Feb for now, on the basis that it would be good to have the workshops in place when we look at the main programme, but we can change this if necessary.
I think from our call the plan is to get the preliminary CfP out to coincide with launch of the revised website?
I will have a go at drafting the CfP at the weekend if poss.

Antony Scott on November 25, 2012:

Have added draft CfP into the document for review. Don't know if it's a bit wordy?

Rollo Home on November 30, 2012:

A solid structure. I've made some changes to the text and added themes....something to get people to add to in the phone meeting.

Jeremy Morley on November 30, 2012:

I've had a last minute tweak too - hopefully this works for you too! (The problem with this sort of editing is that we can't roll back content easily).

Rollo Home on November 30, 2012:

Next Programme Committee meeting is:
Thursday 6th December: 2pm via Skype

Agenda:
  • final approval of first CfP. 
  • final decision of publication date (in reference to new site launch)
  • submission process /
  • community voting model /
  • selection "week-end" (dates / methodology / location)
  • review of timeline for programme
 

Rollo Home on November 30, 2012:

Moved to 11am - to cater for "Jet Set Jeremy" ;-)

Rollo Home on December 6, 2012:

Are we all OK for 11am this morning?
Jo - are you in a position to provide update on the website? Should we wait for the 'launch' or post tomorrow on the current site?

Jo Cook on December 6, 2012:

Thunderbirds are go for the Great Code Transfer at 4pm this afternoon, so tomorrow should be fine.

Jo

Rollo Home on December 6, 2012:

Nice one. Thanks. 
Something to add to my mental list for this call today: need to post call for papers on Lanyrd as well.

Jeremy Morley on December 6, 2012:

How are we meeting? Skype is it? I'm jeremy_morley.

Rollo Home on December 6, 2012:

Let's skype it - so much easier when there's just three of us. I've setup a call and will contact you both a few minutes beforehand. Cheers.

Rollo Home on December 6, 2012:

Jeremy - you need to accept my invite....on skype

Rollo Home on December 6, 2012:


Jo - how do you want to receive the CfP? Do you want a formatted version?

Steven Feldman on December 17, 2012:

Has anyone posted the CfP to the OSGeo lists?

Jo Cook on December 17, 2012:

Steven,

I sent a general email about the new website and the call for papers at the same time, but didn't specifically send a separate one with the pdf version etc. It wouldn't hurt to send it again.

Jo

Steven Feldman on December 17, 2012:

You can't self promote too much :)
Well maybe you can but reposting just on CfP would be good

Antony Scott on December 30, 2012:

Hi all,

I have created a Google Drive form which you should have had notification of (let me know if not), for both the form and the spreadsheet with the responses.

A couple of issues here for us to think about:
  • The form content and layout
  • The submission platform (ie Drive or AGI)
On the latter, my thoughts are that Drive should be nice and easy, and we can embed in a web page so it can be dropped into the site itself. However:
  • There's no registration system for it unless we can come up with a way of putting something in place, so we will be vulnerable to spamming.
  • The results are held in a single Google spreadsheet, so if we lost this for any reason we'd be in trouble. We'd need to back it up regularly.
  • The form does not enforce word limits.
  • The 'theme' responses are dropped into a cell as a long string, thouh we will be able to parse them out.

I'm not sure how the AGI system works, so can't really compare. An alternative is to look at a WordPress forms plugin - I will have a look around.

Comments?

Antony

Antony Scott on December 30, 2012:

For the community voting, we discussed a few options in our call the other day. A suggested format (subject to technology) is as follows:

  • All proposals displayed in a single list
  • Name, Organisation, Title, Short Abstract and Themes displayed
  • Filters/sorts by Theme (filters if possible)
  • Register to vote (anti-spam/repeat voting)
  • Vote for as many as you want
On the basis that:
  • It should be easy for users to browse and look for things that might interest them
  • Ranking will be too complex (for users and us), and risks putting people off
  • We are looking for indications (ie lots of votes/no votes) rather than decisions
The format could be a WordPress survey/forms plugin, a standalone survey app or possibly Google forms.

The immediate requirement is to decide the voting method to propose, so we can consult. No doubt people would have ideas about the technology we should use as well.

By the way, I am assuming we use a seperate but similar system for the workshops - ie we don't try to combine the two. Are we having voting for workshops?
Antony

Antony Scott on January 4, 2013:

Hi all

I wanted to bring Barry, Jo and Claire into this discussion (see the thread on Basecamp) as there are some implications for the website, and also it would be good to know from Claire how the AGI system could handle this submissions. Rollo, Jeremy, did you have any thoughts?

thanks
Antony

Jo Cook on January 4, 2013:

Hi Antony,

Just catching up on the discussions about this. My first comment is that the survey plugin we used for voting for the logo did seem to cause some stability issues with the wordpress install. I'm not sure, though, whether it's just coincidence or not, but I personally would be wary about a similar approach (eg that particular plugin) for voting. 

Secondly, I think the abstract and whatever other detail we're making available should be a hyperlink from the title, so that people click through to the talks they are interested in.  This will keep the size of the list down.

Finally, I think we should ask the question on the conf list of what systems people have used in the past. I don't see any point in re-inventing the wheel. Apols if this has already been done...

Jo

Antony Scott on January 4, 2013:

Jo

Thanks, that all makes sense. Just to be clear, in your second point, you are talking about the community voting, correct?

No, we haven’t asked what’s been done before, that’s a good idea. Initially we thought we’d use the AGI system, but then started to wonder how it would handle the voting.

Antony

Barry Rowlingson on January 4, 2013:

1. I haven't seen the google drive submission form

2. community voting:

 can we use the AGI system for submissions, and then simply pull out the data to put into a voting system if the AGI system doesn't have one?

 presenting all submissions and asking for a ranking, rating, or score is something not many people will go through with

 solutions:
  • present a random submission or small number of random submissions, set rating or score for each, submit, get another batch
  • present two submissions, ask 'which of these would you go to?', submit response, get another pair
since we're not electing a president here the way of ranking from the scores isn't vitally important, since there will always be the committee override for balance - so the research I've done into pairwise-comparison rankings is probably a bit over the top. On the plus side, I now know how the ELO chess rankings are computed.

I could quite easily code up a Django app to do pairwise rankings, or possibly do something that was nearly all client-side in javascript, just needing a POST handler to handle the submission.

How much do we worry about ballot stuffing? That determines if we need authentication.

+1 on finding previous efforts - aka WDDD? (What Did Denver Do)

Jo Cook on January 4, 2013:

Actually, I was thinking back to what I remember from Victoria and Barcelona, both of which had painless community voting systems, from what I remember (aka there's more to life than Denver- TMTLTD)

Before we get too far along the line of deciding how people should vote, I think we should concentrate on the submissions side of things. If we go with the google form, then we have a bunch of limitations to get around, not least the lack of word limits and such like. I think it would be better if we could enforce word limits, and have a captcha to prevent spamming- so perhaps a wordpress/php form might be best for this. I like the style and wording though- happy with that.

Going back to previous questions about this- I don't see why it shouldn't be used for workshops as well, then we either do or don't include these in the voting, depending on how many we get.

Jo

Claire Gilmour on January 4, 2013:

We use Survey Monkey for submissions (e.g. Conference CfPs) and any voting (e.g. Council Elections).  We have never had any problem with using this system, although we send out a link for people to use rather than placing the form directly in a a web page.
Claire

Antony Scott on January 6, 2013:

Here's a suggested posting for the lists, as we agreed to consult before making a decision, particularly on the voting (Jo I take your point about focussing on the submissions, but it would be good to tie down the voting, and it may affect the submission system we use):

"The FOSS4G 2013 LOC will shortly be launching the submission system for the call for papers shortly, and there a couple of (related) things that it would be useful to have some feedback on.

For the submissions themselves, we are looking at something like Survey Monkey, on the basis that it's simple to use and operate. However if anyone has any other suggestions, or experience of what's worked well past events, please let us know.

Second, we are planning a community voting period of about two weeks at the end of April, so that people can review the submissions and provide input to the programme. Our plan is to keep this simple, so that for example people will be able to vote for one or many submissions, giving us some aggregate figures on how popular each one is. However because of the numbers involved, it would be hard work to review them all, so it may be worth thinking about presenting reviewers a random sample of proposals. 

So if anyone has views or experiences on either the voting, and/or a system which could manage it, it would also be good to know.

We're aiming to finalise this within the next week, so look foward to hearing any views."

How does that sound? Which lists should it go to?

Antony

Antony Scott on January 6, 2013:

Jeremy, Rollo,

Don't know how the two of you are fixed (many congrats on your addition Rollo btw, maybe that answers my question ;-) ) but I was wondering if we needed a call on the programme this week ahead of the full call on Friday? I'm available Wed (not eve) or Thur. Otherwise we should propbably do it early next week.

Antony

Jeremy Morley on January 11, 2013:

Yes, we should have had a call...

Times I can do next week: about 4pm on Monday; 9:30 (half an hour) on Tuesday, any time 10-5 on Friday. Evenings if forced.

Antony Scott on January 12, 2013:

Jeremy/Rollo

For me:
Friday fine (preferred)
Mon or Tue OK

Antony

Antony Scott on January 15, 2013:

Jeremy. we've not heard from Rollo, shall we fix something in the meantime? Friday at 10?

Jeremy Morley on January 16, 2013:

Heard from Rollo via Twitter. Friday at 10am looks good. Skype?

Antony Scott on January 17, 2013:

Friday at 10 is good, speak then.

Jeremy Morley on January 17, 2013:

Claire,

Antony, Rollo and I are meeting on Skype at 10am tomorrow to finalise the full call for presentations. Are you able to join us by any chance so we could also decide on the submission system?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Antony Scott on January 18, 2013:

Notes from Programme Call 18/1/2013
Claire, Jeremy, Antony
  1. We will go with Survey Monkey for submissions - tried and tested, can use AGI account and can download results. Spam has not been a problem in the past.
  2. Claire will transcribe submission form from Google Form, subject to a couple of amendments (include target audience, other authors), then circulate for comment.
  3. Although we talked on the call about workshops being on the same form, I wonder now if they should be separate, as we need different questions (length, numbers, level probably relevant here) - thoughts?
  4. 5 min talks to be handled separately, as timescales will be later.
  5. Antony to talk to comms group about getting the submissions link on the page when ready, and about getting publicity going.
  6. Jeremy will ask Paul Ramsey about voting system, and subject to that we will get something out on the lists for discussion (ask Paul which lists, also Jo).
  7. Jeremy to discuss scheduling for programme selection with Steven, and if necessary start a Doodle to finalise dates (AGI is 25/26 April).
Please add if I've missed anything.
Antony

Antony Scott on January 18, 2013:

Thanks Claire for setting up the Survey Monkey form (based on the Google Form) at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/foss4g2013callforpresentations and a voting page
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FOSS4G2013PresentationVoting

My comments/questions:
  • it would be good to include the subject areas as a list (with multiple answers allowed) as per the Google Form - this should help in creating tracks etc.
  • Is there a facility to add help text - ie explanation of each field?
  • at the moment it won't allow multiple submissions -though presumably it would if you cleared cookies in our browser. Can this be changed?
Antony

Claire Gilmour on January 22, 2013:

I cant see the subject areas on the Google Form - can you send them to me?

We cant add a help text box

I have changed the settings to allow multiple submissions

Once finished the survey should redirect people back to the FOSS4G website

Claire

Antony Scott on January 22, 2013:

Claire, here they are.

  • Case Studies: Relate your experiences.
  • Benchmarks: Comparisons between packages.
  • Business Cases: building the economic case.
  • Visualization: effective presentation of information.
  • Disaster Response: software, case studies, outcomes.
  • Development: new developments in products.
  • Hacks and Mashes: novel solutions to our problems.
  • Collaboration: data collection, data sharing, open standards.
  • New data: handling new data models, for example 3D & temporal data, or big data.
  • Other [           ]
Antony

Antony Scott on January 22, 2013:

I think (as per notes above) we need a separate call for workshops. If I put a draft form together, could Claire do another SurveyMonkey?

Antony

Steven Feldman on January 22, 2013:

Claire and I discussed separate Survey Monkey for gathering workshop proposals. Would be brilliant if we could get both of these live by Friday and start atwitter, press and mail list storm

Claire Gilmour on January 23, 2013:

I have put the subject areas in the form.

If you can send me the questions for the workshop call I will make up another one.

Antony Scott on January 23, 2013:

Great, thanks Claire will do.

Antony Scott on January 23, 2013:

All

I have created a Google form for the Workshop Call here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoW_Kvx6vYhTdDNzal9MY2FZUE1DUE5EZURYWXlMWUE

Could you review asap (and edit if you like) so that Claire can then finalise the SurveyMonkey version? We want to be ready to go with this and the main CfP on Friday.

To see the live form, click Form > Go to Live Form.
Antony

Antony Scott on January 25, 2013:

Claire

Haven't heard any comments on the call for workshops, so could you go ahead with the survey monkey? We'll then aim to get it live early next week.
thanks
Antony

Antony Scott on January 26, 2013:

Have sent a note to the lists (conference_dev/foss4g2013.discuss) about the voting system. Let's see what we get....

Claire Gilmour on January 28, 2013:

Here is the link to the call for workshops:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FOSS4G2013Callforworkshops

what is the maximum number of delegates they can have at a workshop?

What are the time slots available?

Claire

Antony Scott on January 29, 2013:

Thanks Claire

I think because I cloned this from the proposal form some of the changes didn’t come through on the google spreadsheet version, though they are in the form itself.

I’ve emailed the form separately – could you let me know if you have got it?

Thanks
Antony

Claire Gilmour on January 29, 2013:

I have updated the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FOSS4G2013Callforworkshops

Let me know if any other changes are needed.

Claire

Antony Scott on January 29, 2013:

Thanks Claire that’s great. Can we say if no other comments by end today we ask Barry/Jo to get this and the CfP up on the website?

Antony Scott on January 29, 2013:

All
Paul Ramsey has kindly volunteered to run the voting system for us (see snip below), and Jeremy (who was copied in) and I are happy to go with this, and Paul can fit in with our dates. We are assuming that others are happy too, but please shout soonest if not, otherwise we will accept Paul's offer!  There have been no other responses to my postings on the OSGeo lists btw...
thanks
Antony

<snip>Antony,

Respondents see all proposals, in a personal random order (each person gets their own order, but their order remains the same if they do multiple sessions). They can score as many or as few as they like. Scoring is 0, 1, 2, with 0 being the default, "don't care", 1 being "some interest" and 2 being "very interested". This allows folks to just troll down the list and pick off items of interest, they don't have to carefully ranking the entire set.

It is not easy to administer (sql commandline on the database!), but I'm volunteering to run the process, which just involves sending me the spreadsheet of abstracts and presenters to load into the database. Then I'll send you back the score totals. The system was used by 2007, 2011, foss4gna 2012, and will be used for foss4gna again this year. 

Best,

P.</snip>

Steven Feldman on January 29, 2013:

Happy :)

Rollo Home on February 1, 2013:

Antony. That seems an excellent suggestion in that it has precedence. Are we aware of any problems from 2007 onwards with this system - no(? I've not heard anything anyway). Has anyone expressed any views over an alternative approach? No. Sorted then. :-)
Claire - excellent survey-monkey pages. Something I noticed, when I ran a test submission (hopefully you'll spot that and delete it) it didn't return you to the conference page, but to the survey-monkey 'advert' page. Same with one of the 'cancel' buttons.  

Antony Scott on February 1, 2013:

All
I think we should put back the date of the call for workshops - it's currently set at Feb 25th, and I can't remember why... This is only three weeks away, shall we say end March unless anyone has other suggestions?
Anton

Claire Gilmour on February 1, 2013:

On the workshop survey I have changed to redirect to the FOSS4G page once they complete. 

If people cancel there isn't a way to direct them to the FOSS4G page.

Rollo Home on February 1, 2013:

Thanks Claire. I guess I meant 'exit survey' rather than 'cancel'. For one of the survey pages it did send you back, and for the other it didn't. It's a small detail.

Rollo Home on April 15, 2013:

Ahead of the the F2F, I wonder is some discussion around the structure of the programme is not needed. It's unfortunate that I can't make the meeting, but I'm happy to pull things together ahead of time.

A starter for 10 is 'a newbie' and/or 'commercial' track. This is a common feature at FOSS events, but we've not explicitly set a space for it. There is potential that we could accommodate this in the GeoCom structure, (or duplicate it in there? Claire is raising this with the AGI AWG to see what they think). Anyway, some below are some thoughts from Arnulf that I think are useful:


Hi Rollo,

what's the count? Suspense!

 

Fwiw - I submitted four(!) presentations now, partly also because you seemed slightly unnerved whether you will get enough to fill the program. Read this to see where they come from:

http://arnulf.us/FOSS4G_2013

 

When submitting my more business focused presentation I thought that it might be a good idea to have a products/business presentation track for "sponsored content" or some such. It would give dedicated room for presentations that aim for sales instead of the latest cool hack or boring yet-another-web-mapping-by-a-local-authority (which are both absolutely valid and important).

 

Maybe you have already catered for this but if not this might be a good idea to make the program transparent and easier to navigate for attendees. Plus it would remove grumblings of the hardcore Open Sourceres who will not accept that businesses also need a platform.

 

Cheers,

 

Antony Scott on April 15, 2013:

So what was the final count, and has the data gone to Paul? I could work on it this eve if necc.

Rollo Home on April 15, 2013:

Community Voting ready for softlaunch... 

 

http://community-review.foss4g.org

 

Please test and ensure it's OK. It's not protected by anything except obscurity at the moment.

 

Unfortunately, somewhere in the web-form -> excel transition newlines were stripped from the data, so Paul can't make the longer abstracts more readable.


(234 valid responses)

Antony Scott on April 15, 2013:

Great, seems to work for me. Website linked and updated.

Steven Feldman on April 16, 2013:

Works for me too :)

I think some pure planning on streams would be helpful. I like the idea of a business stream and also a newbie stream.

Need to think how we could run the newbie stream within AGI as the dates don't overlap

Rollo can you get a doc shared on streams as a starting point

It's been great observing from afar the whole process of paper submission through to community voting all run smoothly. Thanks all

Rollo Home on April 16, 2013:

Suggest the following document is used to play with themes.

Rollo Home on April 16, 2013:

Now that the community voting is under-way, we also have to review the papers and mark them. As outlined elsewhere (https://basecamp.com/1920286/projects/762306-foss4g-13/documents/2625575-programme-making) we're planning on using the "Steven Feldman GeoCommunity Programme Creation Process (SFGcPCP©)" for FOSS...

For the SFGcPCP© you will need the attached document (all 280+ pages of it) that Claire has created using the SFGcPCP© (proprietary) desktop package (SFGcPCEditor©).

Happy marking!
(Terms and Conditions apply)

Jeremy Morley on April 17, 2013:

Hmm. I can see the SFGcPCP working for the 50-80 papers we had in GeoCom but I don't think I can rank sort 280+ presentations. It would really help to have some rough idea of high-level streams. Then we could separate the presentations by stream before ranking in-stream.

Maybe it's too late to change (no doubt everyone's already doing the ranking ;-) but any views on this?

Barry Rowlingson on April 17, 2013:

Are we supposed to follow the procedure here:

https://basecamp.com/1920286/projects/762306-foss4g-13/documents/2625575-programme-making

because the Word doc doesn't have convenient page breaks in order to print one submission per page (at least not when viewed in OpenOffice).

its going to come out as over 300 pages though. I suppose I can print 2-up and get busy with the guillotine...

Jeremy Morley on April 17, 2013:

Fine. I'll follow the rules, looks workable.

(-So- much backlogged at the moment :-( 

Rollo Home on April 17, 2013:

Barry - sorry, yes. It was done in Word. The page breaks work there (except for the few that are very long). 283 pages I have it as.

Jeremy - I agree. A stab at high level presentations has been attempted to in the document into this thread (programme.xls) - however the final streams will come out of the choices.

Papers are allocated to a theme by the submitter - you could use this catorgrise the papers.

Remember the Community Vote will have the primary selection - we're looking to fill and structure the prorgamme. So it maybe that you want to use the Community Voting tool to get your feel for the papers? I note that some of the submissions do not do well at selling themselves....these will be hard to judge as their content may well be important.

Claire Gilmour on April 17, 2013:

I tried to reduce each submission down to 1 page, unfortunately some were too long to do this.

Here is the score sheet to be used.  When saving your score sheet, please save it as your name and then email to me (claire@agi.org.uk)

Barry Rowlingson on April 17, 2013:

Abiword respects the page breaks but few of the presentation make it onto one page so the whole thing is 412 pages....

Any chance of a PDF?

Claire Gilmour on April 17, 2013:

Here is the pdf of all papers

Franz-Josef Behr on April 18, 2013:

How was this document created (I mean: the original compilation out of the submissions)?
Any chance to create s simlar one out of the submissions of the AT track?

Rollo Home on April 18, 2013:

If you can supply the data in a spreadsheet format to Claire, I'm sure she could modify the SFGcPCEditor© to produce something similar.

Barry Rowlingson on April 18, 2013:

I can have a go at pulling the AT submissions out of OJS today. Are we assuming that all AT submitters want to present, even if their papers get bad referee reports?

Claire Gilmour on April 18, 2013:

Here are three late submissions.  These have
NOT be entered into the community vote, but they may prove useful if you find a
gap in the programme somewhere.

Jo Cook on April 18, 2013:

Hi All,

It might be worth a reminder to the whole loc committee that we're expecting everyone to review and mark the papers, if that's indeed what we're expecting. I have only noticed all this discussion going on because I thought I'd better come and have a look- I haven't been seeing any of this as emails, so am a bit behind, and I would imagine a bunch of other people are as well!

Ta

Jo

Steven Feldman on April 18, 2013:

All

I am sitting here thinking about printing nearly 300 pages of abstracts and groaning :(

We need to be pragmatic about programme selection and get to a finished streamed programme within just under two days which means being a bit broad brush about it. If we have 230 odd papers plus 30/40 Academics and some workshops that we might want to rerun as hands on sessions we are going to want to eliminate about 20/25%.

So here is a suggestion, I have asked Claire to export the whole dataset to an excel spreadsheet, then if you want you could print the titles and short abstracts out and do your preliminary scan using those. It might save everyone a lot of time.

I also think in the interests of everyone's sanity we should place a fairly high level of reliance on the community vote and perhaps be looking to pick our top 50-70 papers each which we will mangle using the spreadsheet claire has sent round and somehow conflate with the community voting to reach a first cut (Rollo or Jeremy do you fancy coming up with a method for this?)

This is a great challenge to be facing and should enable us to build an excellent program that will attract loads of delegates.

Looking forward to next week

Steven

Peter Batty on April 18, 2013:

I made this comment on one of the calls I think, but not sure I did in writing. I really think you should take the community ranking as a starting point and then focus on the presentations a certain distance above and below the cutoff line. You need to decide about whether you have an academic track (presumably yes) and a tutorial track, in which case the number of presentations drops quite a bit from 220ish. As I mentioned I think we had around 150 regular papers in Denver, plus tutorials and academic papers (no obligation for you to do the same of course, just mentioning for comparison).

After starting with the community ranking and doing some tweaking either side of the cutoff point, we looked at a few overall things:
- Number of papers by topic / product, including looking for papers with major overlap in topic
- Number of papers by a given presenter and by company

We made a few adjustments based on this. Then we also noticed that we had very few case studies that made the cut based on the community vote, and we felt it was important to have more, so we looked for case studies below the line and moved several of those up.

Again, feel free to do as you wish, just passing on what we did in case it gives you ideas. Good luck!

Steven Feldman on April 18, 2013:

I've just discovered that Rollo had an extract of the full list of submissions (exc the lates) that he sent to paul for the community voting. Claire this should save you having to do another download.

It's here and may be useful to you as a quick way of marking the papers. We can discuss whether we want to use this and the community voting model of "0 = no interest, 1 = moderate interest, 2 = very interested" as a simpler model.
We could then use this spreadsheet to record our scores

Shall we chat about this in tomorrow's call

Franz-Josef Behr on April 18, 2013:

@Barry: Pulling the AT submissions out of OJS would be really helpful (otherwise I'll try to start manually ;-( ). Could the suggestions of the reviewers be included (as far as available)?

> Are we assuming that all AT submitters want to present, even if their papers get bad referee reports?

No, in my opinion.
@Barend: What do you think?

Barend Köbben on April 19, 2013:

I'd assume many of the authors of  not-accepted papers will not register. In many academic environments you need to have a paper in to be able to travel. That being said: some of them might have also put in a regular presentation, and I  noticed at least one that put in the same pape in both tracks... All in all I wouldn't put my money on any estimate :-(

Barry Rowlingson on April 19, 2013:

I'm scraping the AT authors, titles, abstracts etc and possibly the reviewer comments at the moment. The full papers are a bit trickier since I think there's a mix of PDF and DOC (isnt there?) and there's the various revisions. I'll make sure the OJS URLs are in the scraped output so we can click and read.

Barend Köbben on April 19, 2013:

Great Barry. I agree, we don't need the full texts. Over the weekend I'll try to get a first ranking, based on the reviews that are in. (not all, not even close :-(