[Inpycon] CFPs

Noufal Ibrahim noufal at gmail.com
Sat Jun 5 07:03:56 CEST 2010

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon at 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.


More information about the Inpycon mailing list