lawgon at au-kbc.org
Sat Jun 5 07:41:17 CEST 2010
On Saturday 05 June 2010 10:33:56 Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
> > 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.
you have not got the point I am making. The point is that we have to decide
1. are proposals public or not
2. who reviews them
3. who makes the final decision
4. is there to be interaction with the author before a final decision is taken
once this is decided an appropriate mechanism can be put in place.
NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC
More information about the Inpycon