FOSS4G'13

This document attempts to lay out the process of compiling a conference programme utilising what has become known as the GeoCommuntiy method. This method has been modified to fit with the ethos of community driven content suitable for FOSS4G.

The aim of the process is to have, by the end of the Face-2-Face meeting a draft programme, with the outcome more important than the process the methodology is flexible to fit the time and resources available. What is vital however to ensure a strong outcome is preparation. Each participant is expected to have completed the pre-meet stages.

1. The papers have been submitted as an abstract with some key information (or ‘sales’ points) attached that are designed to allow the marker to focus quickly on the value of the paper (the ‘so what’ test). These will be sent to you in a template form (note: GeoCommunity has in the past used a MSWord template – this may change in light of the use of the Community Voting tools being employed by FOSS. For now I’ll continue to assume it’s a Word document). In addition to the Word document there is a marking spreasheet within which you’ll need to enter a score (1 – xx).

Note: these documents will not include any ‘identifying’ information. We are marking ‘blind’ (or as near to it as possible – sometimes the content of the abstract gives it away a bit) for this stage.

2. Pre-Meeting actions

1. Print the papers out (one to a page, not double sided. It’s not environmentally ideal but does simply your life a lot);
2. Read them through and scribble the odd note on them to identify the ones you like, you hate, those that are maybes and those that could be improved.
3. Sort them into 3 piles - yes, no, maybe
4. Sort the yes papers into an order - you will need to run through them 2 or 3 times to get them feeling right
5. Do the same for the maybe papers
6. See whether any of your bottom yes papers and top maybe papers should switch.
7. Order your no papers, but don't take too much time over this. There is generally some amusement in seeing which 1 or 2 you disliked the most and to compare that with others when we get together.
8. Once you are happy with your ordering write numbers from 1 for your favourite to xx for your yuckiest on each paper (useful in case you drop the pile!)
9. Enter the numbers onto the spreadsheet and send to Claire

Claire will compile these scores into a master sheet that aggregates the results to give a ‘favourites’ list as selected by the LoC. Note: it is therefore vital that Claire receives your scores by the agreed date.

In addition to the LoC score the Community will be voting on the papers using the methodology developed by Paul Ramsey. It is anticipated that from this there will be a number of strong ‘yes’ and ‘no’ candidate papers.

3. Meeting actions. Now the hard part starts – attempting to create a programme that fills the 216 potential slots from the pile of yes and maybe papers. It assumed that we will accept the Community Voted ‘yes’ papers. These are likely to coincide with the LoC votes, but it may through up some surprises. Also it is anticipated that there will still be a significant gap to fill (there tend to be strong +ve/-ve polls but little in-between making it hard to create a full programme).

1. 1. a sift is made of the LoC marked papers to select the required 216 abstracts (including the community voted papers (could be based on a cut-off score – often if you plot the scores there is a natural break that occurs to show those papers that just don’t seem to ‘float anyone’s boat’)
2. 2At this stage, it maybe decided to reveal the names of submitters. This is done to expose any weaknesses in the selection (for example too many from one person/company, a poor speaker, etc.). The selection maybe reviewed again in light of any issues.
3. the abstracts are reviewed to identify ‘themes’ and grouped accordingly (group may split up to complete this task).
4. themes are fitted into the programme – gaps may well be found at this stage. Papers are swapped, or bulked out with abstracts that did not make the original 216 selected.
5. this process goes on until a programme is formed. There is flexibility in the actual programme format to accommodate almost anything that crops up…don’t be too constrained by the spreadsheet.

RWH 25/01/13. to be amended as required