[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-discuss] BOFs as Talks

> Small correction: Yes, we did that last year.  This year we rejected
> talks not accepted by the commitee, but left the possibility to
> propose a BoF instead.

        This brings up th question:  What was the composition of the
 academic committee? What are the criteria for acceptance as a member?
 What are the criteria for accepting talks?  When I submit my papers
 to peer reviewed journals, the talks are often forwarded to experts
 in the field -- and the criteria for selecting these external
 reviewers is public. Also, I get detailed feedback about the lacunae
 in my talk, and am invited to submit an improved version, or told why
 it is not acceptable.

        It would be nice to have a more transparent selection process
 (or perhaps let the audience decide, see below).

        An interesting idea came up during debconf; now that we have
 software for people to vote on talks,  and indicate which talks they
 would be interested in attending.  With such a mechanism in place, I
 think we can replace the academic committee, except perhaps to fill
 a few slots left open for the organizers to give to less popular but
 desrving talks a chance.

        I would much rather have a better insight into how talks were
 selected, and more so, why the rejected talks were rejected. If it is
 based on some perception of relevance or interest, I would suggest
 that the registered participants are better judge of that than any
 small group of individuals.

Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Groucho Marx
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@acm.org>  <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: