FOSS4G 2009 Workshop Selection Criteria

From OSGeo
Revision as of 02:21, 13 February 2015 by Leo (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Process

From my email to the list:

I promised a quick overview of the process we will be running through for 
workshop and tutorial submissions, so here it is.
 
After the call closes (tonight for me) I will be munching through all the 
submissions and producing two pdf docs, one for workshops one for tutorials.  
These will be made available for people to review, likely by posting them 
here.  What I will need is everybody to send me a list of their favorite 
10 workshops (or fewer), in order of preference, and their favorite 12 
tutorials (or fewer).  If there are workshops that you would really like 
to see run as tutorials, make a write-in vote and we can pester them to 
change formats if needed.  These should be sent to me (email@deleted.com
use "FOSS4G Workshop Review" as the subject please), not to a public list.
  
I will then to one of two things.  I can create a private list if there are 
sufficient people reviewing (only two have answered by call thus far) and we 
can move discussion to that, or I'll just email everyone directly.  I will 
aggregate the votes and tell everyone the results identifying clear winners 
and which selections need to be fought for. I'm not going to impose any 
'conflict of interest' restrictions here, you may vote for your own, but 
please flag it as your own during voting and discussions.
  
The final decision on the recommendation rests with me, which I will make 
from the discussion in a week or so.  This recommendation will be passed 
to the OC and they will make adjustments as they require. 

We ended up needing a second pass for Workshops that ranked close together. I asked people to justify their rankings, and at Jeff's suggestion did a 0-5 numerical ranking. Justifications were all sensible, mostly required to ensure people actually thought about it, and the rankings showed a clear preference so no 'executive decisions' were required.