That would indeed be better, but it would require a huge amount of extra work for PC chairs and a much more sophisticated software than EasyChair...
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote: > Wouldnt it be better to have redacted the anomaly and aggregated to two > remaining scores rather then three scores because other the review is > meaningless as it the anomaly in place and therefore create the wasted > effort, where an 8 and 3 occurs if the third score is a 10 then the 3 is > the anomaly and the average should be 9 where the third score is 4 then the > 8 is the anomaly and the average is 3.5 > > > > > > On 5 February 2016 at 18:19, Michele Lavazza <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> @Andrew pleas take a look at >> https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme for "the proportion, >> appropriateness or overall relationship of user digest presentations, >> critical issues or discussions". >> >> @Marc-André thank you for your remarks, this is just to say that in the >> end there was no need to implement the so-called "WMF quota" because less >> than 10 WMF staff submission were among the top 40. >> >> @Those who have doubts about the consistency of our implementation of a >> third evaluation in those cases where the first two were strongly >> divergent: this was a technically arduous thing, since clearly assigning a >> third review presupposes having two already. Having a deadline to respect, >> we tried to make sure to have the first two reviews for each submission a >> few days before the deadline (which proved impossible because of personal >> difficulties of some members of our international reviewing team). We would >> then add the third reviews when needed. This still was a heavy bulk of >> extra work, so we decided not to request the extra review for those >> submissions whose average score after the first two reviews was too low to >> make it possible for a third review to make the relevant submission >> competitive for acceptance. (For example: if the top 50 submissions, with 2 >> reviews or 3 where needed, already had an average score higher than 7.5, we >> didn't assign a third reviewer to a submission whose first two scores were >> 3 and 8, because, even if the third review were a 10, the average would >> still be lower than that 7.5). >> >> I hope I answered a few of the most urgent questions. Thank you all for >> expressing you perplexities, criticism, or questions. I realise some >> aspects of the double blind peer review process have been suboptimal and >> we're trying to make sure both that the conference sessions will be >> great nevertheless, and that our experience is useful for the future >> Wikimanias. >> >> Thank you very much, >> yours, >> >> Michele >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Lodewijk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> quick update about the discussions track: I'm coordinating that together >>> with a few others, and this will probably be a bit later in time that most >>> of the other sessions. This is a continuation of the Discussion Room of >>> 2014/2015 <https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Room>, >>> and focuses on roundtabe discussions of 40-45 minutes each on a specific >>> topic. That is mostly because there's less preparation required for those >>> discussions, so we love to have them decided a bit later and have them be >>> more 'hot and current'. We hope to open improve the descriptions of that >>> soon though, and open suggestions for that too. >>> >>> We're currently planning to formally open discussion suggestions on Feb >>> 25 or a bit before. But in the mean time, if you're afraid to forget to >>> submit it by then, feel free to leave behind ideas here: >>> https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discussions&action=edit&redlink=1 >>> (Shani's list of points sounds good in general, although proposals with >>> less information are also welcome for roundtable discussions) >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Shani <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Following Andrew's comments, here's what I know -- >>>> >>>> 1 - User Digest is just one session of about 30 minutes. Liaisons pick >>>> the speakers to that. It's supposed to give a review of the thematic >>>> subject - GLAM, EDU, etc. >>>> >>>> 2 - I'm posting here what I've sent to the Cultural Partners Mailing >>>> List - >>>> >>>> *"*I've just updated the GLAM part on the program liaison page on Meta >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program/Liaisons#GLAM>, >>>> putting there everything from our joint google doc. >>>> >>>> Now that the "critical issues" submission part is over, *it's high >>>> time to submit your suggestions *to all the other aspects of our GLAM >>>> track, if you haven't done so thus far. This includes suggestions for: >>>> ** Discussions* >>>> ** Workshops / Training* >>>> ** Posters* >>>> ** Lightning talks* >>>> * *Anything else we might have forgotten* >>>> >>>> Some of you have already contacted me privately about *discussions * >>>> and *workshops,* so please feel free to update the relevant part on >>>> meta. >>>> Try to keep it in the same format as suggested below, so it's easier to >>>> follow - >>>> * Title: >>>> * Purpose: >>>> * Target audience: >>>> * Length: >>>> * Max number of people (only if there is a limitation on your part): >>>> * Facilitator(s): >>>> * any other detail that will help others get a sense of the workshop >>>> and what you want to achieve. >>>> Please see an example I posted on behalf of Barbara Fischer -- building >>>> the GLAM KIT library >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program/Liaisons#Building_the_GLAM_KIT_library> >>>> .* "* >>>> >>>> In other words*, use the liaison page for now,* till the organizing >>>> team has the separate pages ready. >>>> - Follow the format suggest, so it's cohesive and easier to follow. >>>> - Show your support to proposals, the wiki-way. The organizing team >>>> will take that into consideration. >>>> - When the organizing team opens submissions for the remaining parts -- >>>> submit! >>>> >>>> Hope that helps, >>>> Shani. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-02-04 3:22 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hope Montreal manages something a bit better, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know about "better", nor do I think it quite fair to slam the >>>>> 2016 team either for what was clearly intended to be an attempt to improve >>>>> the process - even if some of the results appear suboptimal in retrospect. >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, the Montreal team is keeping a close eye on the experiments >>>>> being done by the Italian team - no doubt there will be a valuable set of >>>>> lessons learned and we may be able to translate some of the things that >>>>> worked well into improvements to future Wikimanias. >>>>> >>>>> As for the programme selection, we are gunning for a process that >>>>> splits about 30% invited, 40% community CFP, and 30% unconference-style, >>>>> with the selection process for the CFP being very close to past years >>>>> (i.e.: public review on-wiki). We also don't intend to make a distinction >>>>> between submissions by Foundation staff and the other community members, >>>>> though we expect that many presentations that would have been proposals by >>>>> staff will end up being invited directly by the programming committee >>>>> leaving more "slots" available to the CFP. >>>>> >>>>> -- Marc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
