[Inpycon] CFPs

Kenneth Gonsalves 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 
the following:

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.
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Associate

More information about the Inpycon mailing list