On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-kbc.org> wrote: [..]
the way we did it last year was that reviewers could comment on the proposal and/or rate it +1, 0, -1. The authors had access to modify it. The set of reviewers was controlled by decorators - one specifying who can view the proposal, one for comments and one for rating. We had set it as - world viewable, registered users could comment and rate, one vote per head and only authors could modify. Of course each of these rights could be restricted to any subset of registered users.
True but the problem was that we were so close to the deadline that we couldn't get any reviewers and Baiju and I had to make do with a quick scan of the proposals. We didn't use any of the features which the software provided. I don't think it's that big a problem. A wiki or a shared google doc should be enough. Users voting is pretty pointless. Feedback from the audience *after* a talk has been presented in a lot more valuable. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in