From jacob.barhak at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 02:35:38 2013 From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:35:38 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> Hi Sheila, In a nutshell, your arguments point towards GitHub as a preferred publication platform with little need to look for external publication tools. Yet we seriously have to check how the final publication may look like. Here are a few hurdles I can think of and may have simple solutions: 1. Consistent formatting across all papers if using PDFs or even RST or MD 2. Math Equations if not using PDFs 3. HTML pages - although I saw what Katy Huff was able to do in a github page and it is quite impressive. Some of these may be due to my own ignorance. I will have to think about the review process and forms, yet submitting a review as a document to be merged by the organizer after moderation may be a good solution. This was what was done in 2012 to my understanding - although I still submitted reviews by email at that time since I was unfamiliar with github. If Github can simplify such a review process so that emails to a specific address will be directed to the proper branch it may help some reviewers novice to github. Yet there might be better ways to solicit and direct reviews to the repository - these are just initial crude thoughts. The ideas should be tested. Also unless we store virtual machines with code, there is no need to worry about disk space for publication. And it may be even possible to store differences of virtual machine snapshots within limited space. Never the less, there are other issues to solve before discussing publishing VMs. I will wait for more replies and think - I will appreciate more thoughts from others. Jacob Sent from my iPhone From sheila at codersquid.com Fri Nov 1 09:40:59 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:40:59 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > Hi Sheila, > > In a nutshell, your arguments point towards GitHub as a preferred publication platform with little need to look for external publication tools. Yes, but I want to work out my assumptions before completely recommending it. * Volunteer time is scarce. * We will need to do work writing/adapting* code to generate the proceedings regardless of platform. * We will need to do work to format what authors will submit (who don't have time/formatting skills/etc) to work with our build scripts. Using version control to manage everything we get from authors along with the build scripts seems the simplest thing to do starting from those assumptions. Github provides this along with custom domains for github pages. We can have a continuous integration/build system with some effort on top of that (not too much effort**). The github pages could be our "staging" environment where anyone can see the current version of the proceedings. So, given that volunteer time is scarce, we'd want an initial approach that does not require more time than we'd spend at a minimum just following what we did last year or in previous years. Maybe all we need to do is get people involved earlier to start building the proceedings in advance (could use previous years papers for testing). Okay, but if we get more volunteer time, then I'd like to try spiffier things (This is one reason why I am excited about being a technical volunteer, but my main priority is giving time to the conference website). So, the way I see it, we need to start work immediately to recruit volunteers. But, everything I've said depends on a lot of assumptions I've made and I'd like for people to pick those apart. * I don't know about previous years' build scripts. This is something I will be catching up with as a new organizer. ** for example, I've played with travis-ci enough to get a feel for how much effort it would take to have it push artifacts (i.e. proceedings). > Yet we seriously have to check how the final publication may look like. Here are a few hurdles I can think of and may have simple solutions: [valuable feedback] My email is already too long, so I want to reply separately. > I will wait for more replies and think - I will appreciate more thoughts from others. > Me too. -- sheila at codersquid.com From sheila at codersquid.com Fri Nov 1 09:48:35 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:48:35 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > Also unless we store virtual machines with code, there is no need to worry about disk space for publication. And it may be even possible to store differences of virtual machine snapshots within limited space. Never the less, there are other issues to solve before discussing publishing VMs. I'd like to be able to store as much as possible so that people have enough to replicate the research. For code and some data, one approach would be to merely organize the structure of the repo to include those. But I know for some papers, the data used for the work is going to be huge (larger than some VMs). We don't need to resolve this immediately for this email thread. -- sheila at codersquid.com From sheila at codersquid.com Fri Nov 1 09:53:59 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:53:59 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating gh-pages as master In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:26 PM, James Bergstra wrote: > For my part, I'm suspicious of such automatic build systems for latex, > because they seem annoying to use, and fragile to support. Arxiv is > annoying to use for this reason. I actually *was* suggesting that people > put the built PDF in their git project, so it looks *just right* and goes > straight into the master copy without worrying about if the upstream server > has the right latex version & packages installed. My sense is that papers This is a good point. How objectionable would it be to specify a proceedings guide that restricts versions and packages? -- sheila at codersquid.com From kyle.mandli at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 00:43:13 2013 From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:43:13 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Linux Fest Message-ID: It might be worth thinking about having a SciPy presence at the Texas "Linux Fest" (http://texaslinuxfest.org/). It may be a good way to get some more local interest and sponsorship in SciPy. Kyle From andy.terrel at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 11:53:40 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:53:40 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Linux Fest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cool, we might see about doing an advertising swap with them. -- Andy On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Kyle Mandli wrote: > It might be worth thinking about having a SciPy presence at the Texas > "Linux Fest" (http://texaslinuxfest.org/). It may be a good way to > get some more local interest and sponsorship in SciPy. > > Kyle > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From kyle.mandli at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 11:59:21 2013 From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:59:21 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Linux Fest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll email the guy I know who helps organize things and see who we should talk to. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > Cool, we might see about doing an advertising swap with them. > > -- Andy > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Kyle Mandli wrote: >> It might be worth thinking about having a SciPy presence at the Texas >> "Linux Fest" (http://texaslinuxfest.org/). It may be a good way to >> get some more local interest and sponsorship in SciPy. >> >> Kyle >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From jacob.barhak at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 02:57:31 2013 From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:57:31 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Hi Sheila, Since you are the major contributor to this thread and have contacts to volunteers, I will assume that you are leading this effort and I will try to form a core consensus with you. I also suggest that to speed this planning process and also communicate by phone/video conference. I would first like to ask who will be interested to be a party in such a remote conference? Interested people, please respond to this thread. I suggest we see who responds in a week or so and try to figure out best communication method and time. Perhaps we can start a wiki somewhere to help facilitate this better since this mailing list is limited in size of post and may not be the best tool for design. Here are a few issues you raised and some responses: You mention the need to write code regardless if platform - I suggest minimizing the code. Many things are already in place, let us not reinvent the wheel here and only invest time in critical issues. I agree volunteer time is pervious, let us simplify things as much as possible and get a simple design out quickly so we can test it and allow other activities to happen. I agree that we need to work with a simple format. Let me suggest RST as the format of choice. I have little experience with it - I only had to write one paper with it for SciPy in 2012, yet it was easy and quite painless to learn and use and it allows incorporating figures and other elements that may be useful that github displays as HTML once uploaded. I suggest disregarding the latex or any conversion to PDF that was used in 2012 to make things simpler - this was hard on coding and some things did not work intuitively there. And in any case, further processing of RST can be done after the conference. I also suggest that the name of the repository would be SciPy 2014 since the methods may change and improve from year to year, yet if each SciPy has the year appended it can still be found easily. I would even suggest porting back the papers from previous years using this format to make the papers from previous years more visible. I had problems finding my own paper using the correct year branch. Not all people who may read the proceedings will figure out the branch easily - yet a search for SciPy or Scpy 2014 may be able to help find the proceedings from within the github search. I agree that github is a good venue for publication since: 1. The submission of the manuscript is public through a request and a version of the submission is kept by the user and the published Version kept separately while those are connected through the communications. Everything is public and the user has the ability to withdraw his version of not accepted while once accepted SciPy gains control of their own copy. 2. The review can be stored with the paper and again, the review is public. Never the less the review process will have to be defined with simple instructions and perhaps a video to name things easy for reviewers and some programming may be needed here to aid communications with editors/reviewers/authors and volunteers may be needs for testing the idea. 3. GitHub can handle multiple versions in case of corrections before and after publication. 4. Github is natural for python programmers 5. Github can store different media types if needed. And I agree VMs are not yet an issue. However users can be encouraged to store as much as possible and link to other locations that can store more. I hope these ideas make sense to all. Jacob Sent from my iPhone On Nov 1, 2013, at 8:48 AM, sheila miguez wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: >> Also unless we store virtual machines with code, there is no need to worry about disk space for publication. And it may be even possible to store differences of virtual machine snapshots within limited space. Never the less, there are other issues to solve before discussing publishing VMs. > > > I'd like to be able to store as much as possible so that people have > enough to replicate the research. For code and some data, one approach > would be to merely organize the structure of the repo to include > those. But I know for some papers, the data used for the work is going > to be huge (larger than some VMs). > > We don't need to resolve this immediately for this email thread. > > > > -- > sheila at codersquid.com From andy.terrel at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 11:54:44 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:54:44 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: The number 1 problem with the github system that has been brought to my attention (by folks who don't want to get into a fight and haven't posted here) is the lack of anonymity for some reviewers. Basically, how do you reject bad papers or bad ideas or authors who are just plain wrong. Traditionally we have a trusted anonymous reviewer. But as we have witnessed this can be abused so we advocate open reviews. The purely open review system basically makes critical reviews next to impossible. The Cryosphere journal has a nice approach where there are several anonymous reviews but they are shared publicly. This way the reviews can be critical without jeopardizing careers, but others can respond to the faulty reasoning. -- Andy On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > Hi Sheila, > > Since you are the major contributor to this thread and have contacts to > volunteers, I will assume that you are leading this effort and I will try to > form a core consensus with you. > > I also suggest that to speed this planning process and also communicate by > phone/video conference. I would first like to ask who will be interested to > be a party in such a remote conference? Interested people, please respond to > this thread. I suggest we see who responds in a week or so and try to figure > out best communication method and time. > > Perhaps we can start a wiki somewhere to help facilitate this better since > this mailing list is limited in size of post and may not be the best tool > for design. > > Here are a few issues you raised and some responses: > > You mention the need to write code regardless if platform - I suggest > minimizing the code. Many things are already in place, let us not reinvent > the wheel here and only invest time in critical issues. > > I agree volunteer time is pervious, let us simplify things as much as > possible and get a simple design out quickly so we can test it and allow > other activities to happen. > > > I agree that we need to work with a simple format. Let me suggest RST as > the format of choice. I have little experience with it - I only had to write > one paper with it for SciPy in 2012, yet it was easy and quite painless to > learn and use and it allows incorporating figures and other elements that > may be useful that github displays as HTML once uploaded. I suggest > disregarding the latex or any conversion to PDF that was used in 2012 to > make things simpler - this was hard on coding and some things did not work > intuitively there. And in any case, further processing of RST can be done > after the conference. > > I also suggest that the name of the repository would be SciPy 2014 since the > methods may change and improve from year to year, yet if each SciPy has the > year appended it can still be found easily. I would even suggest porting > back the papers from previous years using this format to make the papers > from previous years more visible. I had problems finding my own paper using > the correct year branch. Not all people who may read the proceedings will > figure out the branch easily - yet a search for SciPy or Scpy 2014 may be > able to help find the proceedings from within the github search. > > I agree that github is a good venue for publication since: > > 1. The submission of the manuscript is public through a request and a > version of the submission is kept by the user and the published Version kept > separately while those are connected through the communications. Everything > is public and the user has the ability to withdraw his version of not > accepted while once accepted SciPy gains control of their own copy. > > 2. The review can be stored with the paper and again, the review is public. > Never the less the review process will have to be defined with simple > instructions and perhaps a video to name things easy for reviewers and some > programming may be needed here to aid communications with > editors/reviewers/authors and volunteers may be needs for testing the idea. > > 3. GitHub can handle multiple versions in case of corrections before and > after publication. > > 4. Github is natural for python programmers > > 5. Github can store different media types if needed. And I agree VMs are not > yet an issue. However users can be encouraged to store as much as possible > and link to other locations that can store more. > > I hope these ideas make sense to all. > > Jacob > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 1, 2013, at 8:48 AM, sheila miguez wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > > Also unless we store virtual machines with code, there is no need to worry > about disk space for publication. And it may be even possible to store > differences of virtual machine snapshots within limited space. Never the > less, there are other issues to solve before discussing publishing VMs. > > > > I'd like to be able to store as much as possible so that people have > enough to replicate the research. For code and some data, one approach > would be to merely organize the structure of the repo to include > those. But I know for some papers, the data used for the work is going > to be huge (larger than some VMs). > > We don't need to resolve this immediately for this email thread. > > > > -- > sheila at codersquid.com From sheila at codersquid.com Wed Nov 6 11:59:27 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:59:27 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > The number 1 problem with the github system that has been brought to > my attention (by folks who don't want to get into a fight and haven't > posted here) is the lack of anonymity for some reviewers. This was something I was wondering about but didn't want to get in to it in the other thread. I was thinking of bouncing ideas around to see if github could work with anonymous reviews (asking people to make pseudonymous github accounts would be clunky). -- sheila at codersquid.com From james.bergstra at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 12:17:17 2013 From: james.bergstra at gmail.com (James Bergstra) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:17:17 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: This approach has been adopted by the ICLR conference. They just started doing it last year, but by all accounts it was a great success. It was all open *except* that the area chairs would permit (actually request) specifically chosen reviewers to review certain papers anonymously. On github, this would be more labour-intensive because it's not really what github was made for, but it could work if e.g. area chairs accept reviews by email, and then paste them into github as anonymized reviews. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:59 AM, sheila miguez wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andy Ray Terrel > wrote: > > The number 1 problem with the github system that has been brought to > > my attention (by folks who don't want to get into a fight and haven't > > posted here) is the lack of anonymity for some reviewers. > > > This was something I was wondering about but didn't want to get in to > it in the other thread. I was thinking of bouncing ideas around to see > if github could work with anonymous reviews (asking people to make > pseudonymous github accounts would be clunky). > > > > -- > sheila at codersquid.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From katyhuff at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 12:22:35 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:22:35 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:17 AM, James Bergstra wrote: > This approach has been adopted by the ICLR conference. They just started > doing it last year, but by all accounts it was a great success. It was all > open *except* that the area chairs would permit (actually request) > specifically chosen reviewers to review certain papers anonymously. > > On github, this would be more labour-intensive because it's not really what > github was made for, but it could work if e.g. area chairs accept reviews > by email, and then paste them into github as anonymized reviews. > > I think the workflow could be less laborious than this. The chairs just need to create anonymous accounts, scipy-anon-rev-i, for each anonymous reviewer, i. With those accounts, they conduct the reviews just like anyone else, straight on github. Yes, the reviews of scipy-anon-rev-2 will be linked to each other, perhaps revealing a personality, but I think that still maintains anonymity. > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:59 AM, sheila miguez >wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andy Ray Terrel > > wrote: > > > The number 1 problem with the github system that has been brought to > > > my attention (by folks who don't want to get into a fight and haven't > > > posted here) is the lack of anonymity for some reviewers. > > > > > > This was something I was wondering about but didn't want to get in to > > it in the other thread. I was thinking of bouncing ideas around to see > > if github could work with anonymous reviews (asking people to make > > pseudonymous github accounts would be clunky). > > > > > > > > -- > > sheila at codersquid.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From andy.terrel at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 12:22:24 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:22:24 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM, James Bergstra wrote: > This approach has been adopted by the ICLR conference. They just started > doing it last year, but by all accounts it was a great success. It was all > open *except* that the area chairs would permit (actually request) > specifically chosen reviewers to review certain papers anonymously. > > On github, this would be more labour-intensive because it's not really what > github was made for, but it could work if e.g. area chairs accept reviews by > email, and then paste them into github as anonymized reviews. > Yes. We could do something like put a simple web app that then uploads the comments as "SciPy Proceedings Reviewer" account or something. Definitely more work. -- Andy > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:59 AM, sheila miguez > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andy Ray Terrel >> wrote: >> > The number 1 problem with the github system that has been brought to >> > my attention (by folks who don't want to get into a fight and haven't >> > posted here) is the lack of anonymity for some reviewers. >> >> >> This was something I was wondering about but didn't want to get in to >> it in the other thread. I was thinking of bouncing ideas around to see >> if github could work with anonymous reviews (asking people to make >> pseudonymous github accounts would be clunky). >> >> >> >> -- >> sheila at codersquid.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > From sheila at codersquid.com Wed Nov 6 12:28:34 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:28:34 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > Hi Sheila, > > Since you are the major contributor to this thread and have contacts to > volunteers, I will assume that you are leading this effort and I will try to > form a core consensus with you. Stefan van der Walt is leading proceedings, and I'm interested in being a volunteer to help. I spoke up a lot because I'm also a technical co-chair and would like to help with the tools people will use for doing proceedings stuff. I hope I didn't derail the topic by participating too much; I apologize. For working out consensus. I like how another project I'm in has guidelines for consensus. I'll share that group's guidelines when we have the doc available somewhere other than googledocs. I'd like to suggest using them with any working group I'm running or on. > I also suggest that to speed this planning process and also communicate by > phone/video conference. I would first like to ask who will be interested to > be a party in such a remote conference? Interested people, please respond to > this thread. I suggest we see who responds in a week or so and try to figure > out best communication method and time. I agree a meeting soon would be good. -- sheila at codersquid.com From andy.terrel at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 12:36:39 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:36:39 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM, sheila miguez wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote: >> Hi Sheila, >> >> Since you are the major contributor to this thread and have contacts to >> volunteers, I will assume that you are leading this effort and I will try to >> form a core consensus with you. > > Stefan van der Walt is leading proceedings, and I'm interested in > being a volunteer to help. I spoke up a lot because I'm also a > technical co-chair and would like to help with the tools people will > use for doing proceedings stuff. I hope I didn't derail the topic by > participating too much; I apologize. Sheila, we are an open community and don't have any issue with you responding. The only way things get done at the SciPy conferences is folks take initiative and do them. Your thoughts and initiative here is really appreciated. I expect the only reason many others aren't chiming in is they are too busy to commit to anything. > > For working out consensus. I like how another project I'm in has > guidelines for consensus. I'll share that group's guidelines when we > have the doc available somewhere other than googledocs. I'd like to > suggest using them with any working group I'm running or on. > Please share. As is the consensus decider is basically Kelsey and me, but right now I don't see anything actionable items from this thread. >> I also suggest that to speed this planning process and also communicate by >> phone/video conference. I would first like to ask who will be interested to >> be a party in such a remote conference? Interested people, please respond to >> this thread. I suggest we see who responds in a week or so and try to figure >> out best communication method and time. > > I agree a meeting soon would be good. > > > -- > sheila at codersquid.com From sheila at codersquid.com Wed Nov 6 12:56:13 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:56:13 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: >> For working out consensus. I like how another project I'm in has >> guidelines for consensus. I'll share that group's guidelines when we >> have the doc available somewhere other than googledocs. I'd like to >> suggest using them with any working group I'm running or on. >> > > Please share. As is the consensus decider is basically Kelsey and me, > but right now I don't see anything actionable items from this thread. I went ahead an opened an issue and pasted in a lot of the content from that group. https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/7 -- sheila at codersquid.com From jacob.barhak at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 15:37:00 2013 From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:37:00 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Hi Sheila, Hi Katy, Hi James, Hi Andy, Thanks you all for the active participation and rapid responses. Now this seems to move somewhere. Sheila, you have interesting ideas in the link you sent. Yet this has to become more specific to be implemented. I still suggest a wiki page that will retain history of changes that multiple people can work on. Is it possible to open such a wiki in github and give public permissions for changes? More importantly, there is a discussion about blind review. I can speak of experience. Blind review seems like a good and noble idea. The idea of allowing someone to be protected by blindness while providing an opinion is very nice in theory - it is very similar to the idea of anonymous voting in government elections. I can certainly see the benefits. However, it seems the apademic system has grew to the point where this idea no longer works in practice well. This idea is actively abused al many levels these days and blind review may no longer be a valid solution. I can give many examples, yet I will concentrate on one example that was already witnessed by some in this community - the CSD journal that was associated with SciPy 2013. The journal has rejected a paper without sending it to review and the editor who should have released it to review chose to remain blind, and even worse protected by the publisher who did not reveal the editors name. Note that the editorial board associated with the Journal is public and is listed on the journal web site. So in a sense, the incompetence of the editor who chose not to do their work now casts doubt on the entire editorial board that may very well be innocent and do their job well. Also, blindness can be used as a way to sneak attack good work without accountability. The assumption that all decision makers are honorable and good natured may not be valid at all cases - and supporting blindness opens the door to such cloak and dagger attacks. Furthermore there are other elements to take into account: 1. The scientific community in a certain field may be very small at times and therefore identity may be deduced and competition/differences/conflicts of interest may exist anyway at several levels within the group yet not visible - an open non blind review is relevant in this case. 2. True experts typically try to gain recognition by publication - not hide it by having their name blinded. The argument of avoiding conflict is irrelevant - if a true expert sees a problem and does not report it, then they may be at fault - similar to a doctor not treating a patient. This is worse in my mind than stepping forward while risking a carrier. A carrier consists of past deeds not a future one wishes to obtain. 3. If someone writes a review we wish to know the level of expertise of that person - a persons name gives such indication. Again, the past career speaks rather than future prospects. 4. A non blind review opens the opportunity for a conversation and several rounds of improvement - just like versions of a software. Reviews should no longer be one shot judgments. They should improve others work - I think this is more important and possible to obtain for an open review since the reviewer knows their review itself is under scrutiny. 5. A blind review is funny in the sense that if I meet that person later should I conceal the fact that I was a reviewer? This makes communications awkward and not a good base for community communications - a white elephant will be in the room from the start. I can think of other aspects. Yet these are enough to explain my position. I myself decided I no longer provide blind reviews for that reason. Note that some of level of compromise is possible by allowing blind review during the pre-publication period and then revealing the name of the reviewer post acceptance - yet in the rapid communications world we are having today, and especially in the open software community, do we really need to wait that long? In summary, I suggest we keep the entire process open rather than spend time on figuring out complicated ways to incorporate blindness. It is better to spend efforts on automating editorial support to help handle the papers flowing in and the invitation for reviews. And to be a bit sarcastic, allow me to add the following question: How can one be so open if one is so blind? This is a bit offensive for a reason to show the contradiction between openness and blindness - if you see synergy there then please explain. I hope these arguments seem logical and I am open for counter arguments. I do hope to get some to figure out the best solution here. Jacob Sent from my iPhone From andy.terrel at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 17:02:44 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:02:44 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Message-ID: Jacob, First I appreciate your viewpoint and am glad you are able to give such vigor to this discussion. I'm going to try to respond to your points here but I want to say that the SciPy proceedings is a small part of the overall scientific community. The most effective use of our time is executing a well done, highly cited proceedings, not debating other journals' practices. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > Hi Sheila, Hi Katy, Hi James, Hi Andy, > > Thanks you all for the active participation and rapid responses. Now this seems to move somewhere. > > Sheila, you have interesting ideas in the link you sent. Yet this has to become more specific to be implemented. I still suggest a wiki page that will retain history of changes that multiple people can work on. Is it possible to open such a wiki in github and give public permissions for changes? Please use google here. Asking others to find out details about github wastes their time. > > More importantly, there is a discussion about blind review. I can speak of experience. Blind review seems like a good and noble idea. The idea of allowing someone to be protected by blindness while providing an opinion is very nice in theory - it is very similar to the idea of anonymous voting in government elections. I can certainly see the benefits. However, it seems the apademic system has grew to the point where this idea no longer works in practice well. This idea is actively abused al many levels these days and blind review may no longer be a valid solution. I can give many examples, yet I will concentrate on one example that was already witnessed by some in this community - the CSD journal that was associated with SciPy 2013. > > The journal has rejected a paper without sending it to review and the editor who should have released it to review chose to remain blind, and even worse protected by the publisher who did not reveal the editors name. Note that the editorial board associated with the Journal is public and is listed on the journal web site. So in a sense, the incompetence of the editor who chose not to do their work now casts doubt on the entire editorial board that may very well be innocent and do their job well. Also, blindness can be used as a way to sneak attack good work without accountability. The assumption that all decision makers are honorable and good natured may not be valid at all cases - and supporting blindness opens the door to such cloak and dagger attacks. > This list is not an appropriate venue for you to air your dirty laundry with CSD. As far as I can tell the editorial board did their job. They protected their review board from a paper they thought would be rejected. Editors are the keepers of the journal and give no promise to review every paper submitted. If someone submits a paper that is inappropriate to SciPy Proceedings our editors reserve the same exact right. The proposal was to have a blind review but publish the review in the open. This will allow other reviewers to respond to a review that is out of line. > Furthermore there are other elements to take into account: > > 1. The scientific community in a certain field may be very small at times and therefore identity may be deduced and competition/differences/conflicts of interest may exist anyway at several levels within the group yet not visible - an open non blind review is relevant in this case. Our community is pretty large, the shimmer of hidden identity still helps folks give an honest review. > > 2. True experts typically try to gain recognition by publication - not hide it by having their name blinded. The argument of avoiding conflict is irrelevant - if a true expert sees a problem and does not report it, then they may be at fault - similar to a doctor not treating a patient. This is worse in my mind than stepping forward while risking a carrier. A carrier consists of past deeds not a future one wishes to obtain. > It is the duty of the editor to find experts, but since the reviews are published in the open, the submitter can refute any problems addressed by the review in the open. Because other reviewers are open, others can refute them as well. > 3. If someone writes a review we wish to know the level of expertise of that person - a persons name gives such indication. Again, the past career speaks rather than future prospects. > Reviews should be judged by the merits of their content not the prestige of the reviewer. Once again the open reviews and responses can address this. > 4. A non blind review opens the opportunity for a conversation and several rounds of improvement - just like versions of a software. Reviews should no longer be one shot judgments. They should improve others work - I think this is more important and possible to obtain for an open review since the reviewer knows their review itself is under scrutiny. > This is still possible if a few reviewers are blind. > 5. A blind review is funny in the sense that if I meet that person later should I conceal the fact that I was a reviewer? This makes communications awkward and not a good base for community communications - a white elephant will be in the room from the start. > That is your personal decision and emotions. I regularly talk to folks about their papers without revealing that I'm a reviewer. The honesty of reviews is more important. > I can think of other aspects. Yet these are enough to explain my position. I myself decided I no longer provide blind reviews for that reason. > Sorry, I have not been convinced at all. > Note that some of level of compromise is possible by allowing blind review during the pre-publication period and then revealing the name of the reviewer post acceptance - yet in the rapid communications world we are having today, and especially in the open software community, do we really need to wait that long? > No. The anonymous reviewers should always be anonymous, the protection of identity is to promote honest reviews not to speed to publication. Public reviews can be always be public. > In summary, I suggest we keep the entire process open rather than spend time on figuring out complicated ways to incorporate blindness. It is better to spend efforts on automating editorial support to help handle the papers flowing in and the invitation for reviews. > This has already be accomplished via the github model > And to be a bit sarcastic, allow me to add the following question: > > How can one be so open if one is so blind? > Who cares about openness if it is producing papers that are uncited and unread. > This is a bit offensive for a reason to show the contradiction between openness and blindness - if you see synergy there then please explain. > > I hope these arguments seem logical and I am open for counter arguments. I do hope to get some to figure out the best solution here. > > Jacob > > > Sent from my iPhone -- Andy From jacob.barhak at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 18:13:45 2013 From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:13:45 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Message-ID: <18CB99EA-F9A8-455F-9591-DEB294BD9A80@gmail.com> Hi Andy, You may wish to go over previous material. The CSD case is highly relevant here. And you were BCCd to the entire relevant communication for a few months. And we discussed this also in person. Note that CSD admitted their editor did wrong. See the communications you already have. I took this as only a single example. There are more such phenomenon that should be stopped - not publication. Your approach of the editor standing valiantly at the gate and stopping the flow of bad publications may already be antiquated. New technology opens new paths we should explore and github has a good infrastructure to support this. Unblinding the review process is a viable solution that was not possible in the past. You strongly oppose this unblinding for some reason. You fail to give concrete examples while I gave you one close to SciPy - considering this my evidence seems stronger than your arguments at this point in time. And do recall that this is public, so your last remark regarding unread papers can be interpreted badly considering your strong affiliation with SciPy - you should rephrase your text here and issue a correction - I truly believe you wish SciPy proceedings to be read. Let us figure out how this can be accomplished. Jacob Sent from my iPhone On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > Jacob, > > First I appreciate your viewpoint and am glad you are able to give > such vigor to this discussion. I'm going to try to respond to your > points here but I want to say that the SciPy proceedings is a small > part of the overall scientific community. The most effective use of > our time is executing a well done, highly cited proceedings, not > debating other journals' practices. > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote: >> Hi Sheila, Hi Katy, Hi James, Hi Andy, >> >> Thanks you all for the active participation and rapid responses. Now this seems to move somewhere. >> >> Sheila, you have interesting ideas in the link you sent. Yet this has to become more specific to be implemented. I still suggest a wiki page that will retain history of changes that multiple people can work on. Is it possible to open such a wiki in github and give public permissions for changes? > > Please use google here. Asking others to find out details about > github wastes their time. > >> >> More importantly, there is a discussion about blind review. I can speak of experience. Blind review seems like a good and noble idea. The idea of allowing someone to be protected by blindness while providing an opinion is very nice in theory - it is very similar to the idea of anonymous voting in government elections. I can certainly see the benefits. However, it seems the apademic system has grew to the point where this idea no longer works in practice well. This idea is actively abused al many levels these days and blind review may no longer be a valid solution. I can give many examples, yet I will concentrate on one example that was already witnessed by some in this community - the CSD journal that was associated with SciPy 2013. >> >> The journal has rejected a paper without sending it to review and the editor who should have released it to review chose to remain blind, and even worse protected by the publisher who did not reveal the editors name. Note that the editorial board associated with the Journal is public and is listed on the journal web site. So in a sense, the incompetence of the editor who chose not to do their work now casts doubt on the entire editorial board that may very well be innocent and do their job well. Also, blindness can be used as a way to sneak attack good work without accountability. The assumption that all decision makers are honorable and good natured may not be valid at all cases - and supporting blindness opens the door to such cloak and dagger attacks. > > This list is not an appropriate venue for you to air your dirty > laundry with CSD. As far as I can tell the editorial board did their > job. They protected their review board from a paper they thought > would be rejected. Editors are the keepers of the journal and give no > promise to review every paper submitted. If someone submits a paper > that is inappropriate to SciPy Proceedings our editors reserve the > same exact right. > > The proposal was to have a blind review but publish the review in the > open. This will allow other reviewers to respond to a review that is > out of line. > >> Furthermore there are other elements to take into account: >> >> 1. The scientific community in a certain field may be very small at times and therefore identity may be deduced and competition/differences/conflicts of interest may exist anyway at several levels within the group yet not visible - an open non blind review is relevant in this case. > > Our community is pretty large, the shimmer of hidden identity still > helps folks give an honest review. > >> >> 2. True experts typically try to gain recognition by publication - not hide it by having their name blinded. The argument of avoiding conflict is irrelevant - if a true expert sees a problem and does not report it, then they may be at fault - similar to a doctor not treating a patient. This is worse in my mind than stepping forward while risking a carrier. A carrier consists of past deeds not a future one wishes to obtain. > > It is the duty of the editor to find experts, but since the reviews > are published in the open, the submitter can refute any problems > addressed by the review in the open. Because other reviewers are > open, others can refute them as well. > >> 3. If someone writes a review we wish to know the level of expertise of that person - a persons name gives such indication. Again, the past career speaks rather than future prospects. > > Reviews should be judged by the merits of their content not the > prestige of the reviewer. Once again the open reviews and responses > can address this. > >> 4. A non blind review opens the opportunity for a conversation and several rounds of improvement - just like versions of a software. Reviews should no longer be one shot judgments. They should improve others work - I think this is more important and possible to obtain for an open review since the reviewer knows their review itself is under scrutiny. > > This is still possible if a few reviewers are blind. > >> 5. A blind review is funny in the sense that if I meet that person later should I conceal the fact that I was a reviewer? This makes communications awkward and not a good base for community communications - a white elephant will be in the room from the start. > > That is your personal decision and emotions. I regularly talk to > folks about their papers without revealing that I'm a reviewer. The > honesty of reviews is more important. > >> I can think of other aspects. Yet these are enough to explain my position. I myself decided I no longer provide blind reviews for that reason. > > Sorry, I have not been convinced at all. > >> Note that some of level of compromise is possible by allowing blind review during the pre-publication period and then revealing the name of the reviewer post acceptance - yet in the rapid communications world we are having today, and especially in the open software community, do we really need to wait that long? > > No. The anonymous reviewers should always be anonymous, the > protection of identity is to promote honest reviews not to speed to > publication. Public reviews can be always be public. > >> In summary, I suggest we keep the entire process open rather than spend time on figuring out complicated ways to incorporate blindness. It is better to spend efforts on automating editorial support to help handle the papers flowing in and the invitation for reviews. > > This has already be accomplished via the github model > >> And to be a bit sarcastic, allow me to add the following question: >> >> How can one be so open if one is so blind? > > Who cares about openness if it is producing papers that are uncited and unread. > >> This is a bit offensive for a reason to show the contradiction between openness and blindness - if you see synergy there then please explain. >> >> I hope these arguments seem logical and I am open for counter arguments. I do hope to get some to figure out the best solution here. >> >> Jacob >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone > > -- Andy From kyle.mandli at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 18:42:20 2013 From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:42:20 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: <18CB99EA-F9A8-455F-9591-DEB294BD9A80@gmail.com> References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> <18CB99EA-F9A8-455F-9591-DEB294BD9A80@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone, I have been reading along with this conversation as best I could (it's been a bit of a firehose) and I felt it was time for me to chime in with support for keeping reviews anonymous. My experience thus far as both a reviewer and the reviewed is that anonymous reviews are often integral to the integrity of the scientific process. I understand Jacob's concerns and negative experiences with the process but I feel that we would be trading one set of cons for another set. There is an additional concern that having non-anonymous reviews may decrease the number of willing volunteers to do reviews. In the past the SciPy proceedings have often been short on reviewers and I fear that making the reviews non-anonymous would exacerbate the situation. I also want to point out that anonymous reviews do not preclude open reviews (i.e. having all reviews being public) and open access publishing. That being over, I wanted to also point out that if we stick with an anonymous reviewer policy that a reviewer could still voluntarily sign their review. I am not particularly enthusiastic about this prospect but it does make this the choice of the individual reviewers. Kyle On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > Hi Andy, > > You may wish to go over previous material. > > The CSD case is highly relevant here. And you were BCCd to the entire relevant communication for a few months. And we discussed this also in person. > > Note that CSD admitted their editor did wrong. See the communications you already have. I took this as only a single example. There are more such phenomenon that should be stopped - not publication. Your approach of the editor standing valiantly at the gate and stopping the flow of bad publications may already be antiquated. New technology opens new paths we should explore and github has a good infrastructure to support this. > > Unblinding the review process is a viable solution that was not possible in the past. > > You strongly oppose this unblinding for some reason. You fail to give concrete examples while I gave you one close to SciPy - considering this my evidence seems stronger than your arguments at this point in time. > > And do recall that this is public, so your last remark regarding unread papers can be interpreted badly considering your strong affiliation with SciPy - you should rephrase your text here and issue a correction - I truly believe you wish SciPy proceedings to be read. Let us figure out how this can be accomplished. > > Jacob > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >> Jacob, >> >> First I appreciate your viewpoint and am glad you are able to give >> such vigor to this discussion. I'm going to try to respond to your >> points here but I want to say that the SciPy proceedings is a small >> part of the overall scientific community. The most effective use of >> our time is executing a well done, highly cited proceedings, not >> debating other journals' practices. >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote: >>> Hi Sheila, Hi Katy, Hi James, Hi Andy, >>> >>> Thanks you all for the active participation and rapid responses. Now this seems to move somewhere. >>> >>> Sheila, you have interesting ideas in the link you sent. Yet this has to become more specific to be implemented. I still suggest a wiki page that will retain history of changes that multiple people can work on. Is it possible to open such a wiki in github and give public permissions for changes? >> >> Please use google here. Asking others to find out details about >> github wastes their time. >> >>> >>> More importantly, there is a discussion about blind review. I can speak of experience. Blind review seems like a good and noble idea. The idea of allowing someone to be protected by blindness while providing an opinion is very nice in theory - it is very similar to the idea of anonymous voting in government elections. I can certainly see the benefits. However, it seems the apademic system has grew to the point where this idea no longer works in practice well. This idea is actively abused al many levels these days and blind review may no longer be a valid solution. I can give many examples, yet I will concentrate on one example that was already witnessed by some in this community - the CSD journal that was associated with SciPy 2013. >>> >>> The journal has rejected a paper without sending it to review and the editor who should have released it to review chose to remain blind, and even worse protected by the publisher who did not reveal the editors name. Note that the editorial board associated with the Journal is public and is listed on the journal web site. So in a sense, the incompetence of the editor who chose not to do their work now casts doubt on the entire editorial board that may very well be innocent and do their job well. Also, blindness can be used as a way to sneak attack good work without accountability. The assumption that all decision makers are honorable and good natured may not be valid at all cases - and supporting blindness opens the door to such cloak and dagger attacks. >> >> This list is not an appropriate venue for you to air your dirty >> laundry with CSD. As far as I can tell the editorial board did their >> job. They protected their review board from a paper they thought >> would be rejected. Editors are the keepers of the journal and give no >> promise to review every paper submitted. If someone submits a paper >> that is inappropriate to SciPy Proceedings our editors reserve the >> same exact right. >> >> The proposal was to have a blind review but publish the review in the >> open. This will allow other reviewers to respond to a review that is >> out of line. >> >>> Furthermore there are other elements to take into account: >>> >>> 1. The scientific community in a certain field may be very small at times and therefore identity may be deduced and competition/differences/conflicts of interest may exist anyway at several levels within the group yet not visible - an open non blind review is relevant in this case. >> >> Our community is pretty large, the shimmer of hidden identity still >> helps folks give an honest review. >> >>> >>> 2. True experts typically try to gain recognition by publication - not hide it by having their name blinded. The argument of avoiding conflict is irrelevant - if a true expert sees a problem and does not report it, then they may be at fault - similar to a doctor not treating a patient. This is worse in my mind than stepping forward while risking a carrier. A carrier consists of past deeds not a future one wishes to obtain. >> >> It is the duty of the editor to find experts, but since the reviews >> are published in the open, the submitter can refute any problems >> addressed by the review in the open. Because other reviewers are >> open, others can refute them as well. >> >>> 3. If someone writes a review we wish to know the level of expertise of that person - a persons name gives such indication. Again, the past career speaks rather than future prospects. >> >> Reviews should be judged by the merits of their content not the >> prestige of the reviewer. Once again the open reviews and responses >> can address this. >> >>> 4. A non blind review opens the opportunity for a conversation and several rounds of improvement - just like versions of a software. Reviews should no longer be one shot judgments. They should improve others work - I think this is more important and possible to obtain for an open review since the reviewer knows their review itself is under scrutiny. >> >> This is still possible if a few reviewers are blind. >> >>> 5. A blind review is funny in the sense that if I meet that person later should I conceal the fact that I was a reviewer? This makes communications awkward and not a good base for community communications - a white elephant will be in the room from the start. >> >> That is your personal decision and emotions. I regularly talk to >> folks about their papers without revealing that I'm a reviewer. The >> honesty of reviews is more important. >> >>> I can think of other aspects. Yet these are enough to explain my position. I myself decided I no longer provide blind reviews for that reason. >> >> Sorry, I have not been convinced at all. >> >>> Note that some of level of compromise is possible by allowing blind review during the pre-publication period and then revealing the name of the reviewer post acceptance - yet in the rapid communications world we are having today, and especially in the open software community, do we really need to wait that long? >> >> No. The anonymous reviewers should always be anonymous, the >> protection of identity is to promote honest reviews not to speed to >> publication. Public reviews can be always be public. >> >>> In summary, I suggest we keep the entire process open rather than spend time on figuring out complicated ways to incorporate blindness. It is better to spend efforts on automating editorial support to help handle the papers flowing in and the invitation for reviews. >> >> This has already be accomplished via the github model >> >>> And to be a bit sarcastic, allow me to add the following question: >>> >>> How can one be so open if one is so blind? >> >> Who cares about openness if it is producing papers that are uncited and unread. >> >>> This is a bit offensive for a reason to show the contradiction between openness and blindness - if you see synergy there then please explain. >>> >>> I hope these arguments seem logical and I am open for counter arguments. I do hope to get some to figure out the best solution here. >>> >>> Jacob >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >> -- Andy > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From scopatz at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 18:46:17 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:46:17 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > The most effective use of our time is executing a well done, highly cited > proceedings, Here here! I completely agree. Also as communications chair, I think that we should now transition from the current discussion to more actually doing. I applaud Sheila's issue that she opened. If you want to actually work on this issue, please defer to Sheila and Stefan. I don't believe that a lot of further good can really come from further discussion on this thread. The main points have been made, let's reiterate them only in service to our broader goal of having great proceedings. Be Well Anthony > not > debating other journals' practices. > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jacob Barhak > wrote: > > Hi Sheila, Hi Katy, Hi James, Hi Andy, > > > > Thanks you all for the active participation and rapid responses. Now > this seems to move somewhere. > > > > Sheila, you have interesting ideas in the link you sent. Yet this has to > become more specific to be implemented. I still suggest a wiki page that > will retain history of changes that multiple people can work on. Is it > possible to open such a wiki in github and give public permissions for > changes? > > Please use google here. Asking others to find out details about > github wastes their time. > > > > > More importantly, there is a discussion about blind review. I can speak > of experience. Blind review seems like a good and noble idea. The idea of > allowing someone to be protected by blindness while providing an opinion is > very nice in theory - it is very similar to the idea of anonymous voting in > government elections. I can certainly see the benefits. However, it seems > the apademic system has grew to the point where this idea no longer works > in practice well. This idea is actively abused al many levels these days > and blind review may no longer be a valid solution. I can give many > examples, yet I will concentrate on one example that was already witnessed > by some in this community - the CSD journal that was associated with SciPy > 2013. > > > > The journal has rejected a paper without sending it to review and the > editor who should have released it to review chose to remain blind, and > even worse protected by the publisher who did not reveal the editors name. > Note that the editorial board associated with the Journal is public and is > listed on the journal web site. So in a sense, the incompetence of the > editor who chose not to do their work now casts doubt on the entire > editorial board that may very well be innocent and do their job well. Also, > blindness can be used as a way to sneak attack good work without > accountability. The assumption that all decision makers are honorable and > good natured may not be valid at all cases - and supporting blindness opens > the door to such cloak and dagger attacks. > > > > This list is not an appropriate venue for you to air your dirty > laundry with CSD. As far as I can tell the editorial board did their > job. They protected their review board from a paper they thought > would be rejected. Editors are the keepers of the journal and give no > promise to review every paper submitted. If someone submits a paper > that is inappropriate to SciPy Proceedings our editors reserve the > same exact right. > > The proposal was to have a blind review but publish the review in the > open. This will allow other reviewers to respond to a review that is > out of line. > > > Furthermore there are other elements to take into account: > > > > 1. The scientific community in a certain field may be very small at > times and therefore identity may be deduced and > competition/differences/conflicts of interest may exist anyway at several > levels within the group yet not visible - an open non blind review is > relevant in this case. > > Our community is pretty large, the shimmer of hidden identity still > helps folks give an honest review. > > > > > 2. True experts typically try to gain recognition by publication - not > hide it by having their name blinded. The argument of avoiding conflict is > irrelevant - if a true expert sees a problem and does not report it, then > they may be at fault - similar to a doctor not treating a patient. This is > worse in my mind than stepping forward while risking a carrier. A carrier > consists of past deeds not a future one wishes to obtain. > > > > It is the duty of the editor to find experts, but since the reviews > are published in the open, the submitter can refute any problems > addressed by the review in the open. Because other reviewers are > open, others can refute them as well. > > > 3. If someone writes a review we wish to know the level of expertise of > that person - a persons name gives such indication. Again, the past career > speaks rather than future prospects. > > > > Reviews should be judged by the merits of their content not the > prestige of the reviewer. Once again the open reviews and responses > can address this. > > > 4. A non blind review opens the opportunity for a conversation and > several rounds of improvement - just like versions of a software. Reviews > should no longer be one shot judgments. They should improve others work - I > think this is more important and possible to obtain for an open review > since the reviewer knows their review itself is under scrutiny. > > > > This is still possible if a few reviewers are blind. > > > 5. A blind review is funny in the sense that if I meet that person later > should I conceal the fact that I was a reviewer? This makes communications > awkward and not a good base for community communications - a white elephant > will be in the room from the start. > > > > That is your personal decision and emotions. I regularly talk to > folks about their papers without revealing that I'm a reviewer. The > honesty of reviews is more important. > > > I can think of other aspects. Yet these are enough to explain my > position. I myself decided I no longer provide blind reviews for that > reason. > > > > Sorry, I have not been convinced at all. > > > Note that some of level of compromise is possible by allowing blind > review during the pre-publication period and then revealing the name of the > reviewer post acceptance - yet in the rapid communications world we are > having today, and especially in the open software community, do we really > need to wait that long? > > > > No. The anonymous reviewers should always be anonymous, the > protection of identity is to promote honest reviews not to speed to > publication. Public reviews can be always be public. > > > In summary, I suggest we keep the entire process open rather than spend > time on figuring out complicated ways to incorporate blindness. It is > better to spend efforts on automating editorial support to help handle the > papers flowing in and the invitation for reviews. > > > > This has already be accomplished via the github model > > > And to be a bit sarcastic, allow me to add the following question: > > > > How can one be so open if one is so blind? > > > > Who cares about openness if it is producing papers that are uncited and > unread. > > > This is a bit offensive for a reason to show the contradiction between > openness and blindness - if you see synergy there then please explain. > > > > I hope these arguments seem logical and I am open for counter arguments. > I do hope to get some to figure out the best solution here. > > > > Jacob > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- Andy > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From jacob.barhak at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 19:44:22 2013 From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:44:22 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank Anthony, and Hi Kyle, Your suggestion to start work makes perfect sense - I did previously suggest a wiki page that can absorb all ideas of the design. If this is ok with everyone I will be happy to start one - yet my ideas will populate it and this discussion will not go away. The sooner we resolve this the better. And I do want to make sure we are using the same design tool - if anyone has a better idea for an open design tool I will follow - I care less about the tool - other possible alternatives I can think of are a Google doc or a Google site - that are essentially a wiki. This is only to figure out how the submission/review process will work. As for Kyle, getting reviewers is a difficult task. I was in the editorial board of a journal for a while and I can tell you that in cases I had to locate and invite around 50-70 people to get 3 blind reviews. I spend many hours in locating people cross referencing them for conflict of interest and writing letters of invitation and I have Scholar one to help automation. ,This was regular to get slow responses - if I got all 3 reviews after submitting 30 requests it was an easy paper to handle. The issue is less with the anonymity of reviewers. The main issue is that there is no reward for the reviewer. It is just extra work without any type of compensation. So the issue is not blindness - the issue is willingness. The only thing that can attract reviewers is the obligation to review if they submit a paper. And this actually makes sense from a closed system point of view and it encourages cross dissemination within the conference. If you look at my previous suggestions you will find this options inside. I suggest figuring out how to automated the redirection process of submissions and reviews - I have some ideas, yet they go in the direction I suggested. I strongly object to blind reviews within such circumstances - it is better to have a dictatorship of the editor than a blind review in an open community. If you choose dictatorship, then the entire process becomes almost trivial and github is already set to handle such proceedings. And Kyle, let me ask you that - would you personally submit a SciPy paper knowing that to get the paper accepted you have to review another Scipy paper and sign your name on the review? For me the answer is Yes. I will actually respect such a conference more. If I have a second and a third for a specific tool, it should be sufficient to move forward. I do hope we can resolve this and get to work fast. Jacob From james.bergstra at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 20:21:59 2013 From: james.bergstra at gmail.com (James Bergstra) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:21:59 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > And Kyle, let me ask you that - would you personally submit a SciPy paper > knowing that to get the paper accepted you have to review another Scipy > paper and sign your name on the review? For me the answer is Yes. I will > actually respect such a conference more. > > Hmm, this sounds socially awkward to me, and I'm suspicious of potential conflict of interest. Are there other conferences/journals that work this way? Have you guys checked out ICLR? They use a custom web app to run the submission system that includes both anonymous and non-anonymous reviews (plus non-anonymous comments on the reviews). http://openreview.net/iclr2013 Like I mentioned earlier, by all accounts ICLR's model was a success and several other conferences & workshops have used it since then. SciPy could simply join their ranks and handle the conference submissions and review process with the software they've built at openreview.net. - James From scopatz at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 20:48:20 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:48:20 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy In-Reply-To: References: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com> <07F7FBD1-7752-4CF6-B417-192A4A11239F@gmail.com> <5F24E80E-A7CF-4B6D-8C83-F86722A4E482@gmail.com> <7365345A-9CDA-4AF3-85E5-4A0C40FFF644@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello James, Jacob, I'd really rather us not continue this discussion on this thread. Thanks! Be Well Anthony On Nov 6, 2013 5:22 PM, "James Bergstra" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote: > >> And Kyle, let me ask you that - would you personally submit a SciPy paper >> knowing that to get the paper accepted you have to review another Scipy >> paper and sign your name on the review? For me the answer is Yes. I will >> actually respect such a conference more. >> >> > Hmm, this sounds socially awkward to me, and I'm suspicious of potential > conflict of interest. Are there other conferences/journals that work this > way? > > Have you guys checked out ICLR? They use a custom web app to run the > submission system that includes both anonymous and non-anonymous reviews > (plus non-anonymous comments on the reviews). > > http://openreview.net/iclr2013 > > Like I mentioned earlier, by all accounts ICLR's model was a success and > several other conferences & workshops have used it since then. SciPy could > simply join their ranks and handle the conference submissions and review > process with the software they've built at openreview.net. > > - James > > From srey at asu.edu Wed Nov 6 21:35:22 2013 From: srey at asu.edu (Serge Rey) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:35:22 -0700 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences Message-ID: Hi All, Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences we all may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting at) between now and July came. If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If not, where should we put it to start populating it? Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov 12-13, 2013) - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, 2014) - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, Finland June 2014) s. -- Sergio (Serge) Rey Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation Arizona State University http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey Editor, International Regional Science Review http://irx.sagepub.com From jrocher at enthought.com Thu Nov 7 10:21:09 2013 From: jrocher at enthought.com (Jonathan Rocher) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:21:09 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to advertize for SciPy. Jonathan On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: > Hi All, > > Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences we all > may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting at) > between now and July came. > > If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If not, > where should we put it to start populating it? > > Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: > > - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov 12-13, > 2013) > - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, 2014) > - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) > - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, Finland > June 2014) > > s. > > -- > Sergio (Serge) Rey > Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning > GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation > Arizona State University > http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey > > Editor, International Regional Science Review > http://irx.sagepub.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Jonathan Rocher, PhD Scientific software developer Enthought, Inc. jrocher at enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com From matthewturk at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 10:24:26 2013 From: matthewturk at gmail.com (Matthew Turk) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:24:26 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the UMich CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few words about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with the scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy is and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and contacts. -Matt On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher wrote: > And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb > 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to advertize for > SciPy. > > Jonathan > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences we all >> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting at) >> between now and July came. >> >> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If not, >> where should we put it to start populating it? >> >> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: >> >> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov 12-13, >> 2013) >> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, 2014) >> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) >> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, Finland >> June 2014) >> >> s. >> >> -- >> Sergio (Serge) Rey >> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning >> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation >> Arizona State University >> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey >> >> Editor, International Regional Science Review >> http://irx.sagepub.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > > -- > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > Scientific software developer > Enthought, Inc. > jrocher at enthought.com > 1-512-536-1057 > http://www.enthought.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From kyle.mandli at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 10:47:36 2013 From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:47:36 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference in Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on parallel processing in python (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949). The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do this effectively. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk wrote: > Hi all, > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the UMich > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few words > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with the > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy is > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and contacts. > > -Matt > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher wrote: >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to advertize for >> SciPy. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences we all >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting at) >>> between now and July came. >>> >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If not, >>> where should we put it to start populating it? >>> >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: >>> >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov 12-13, >>> 2013) >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, 2014) >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, Finland >>> June 2014) >>> >>> s. >>> >>> -- >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation >>> Arizona State University >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey >>> >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review >>> http://irx.sagepub.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD >> Scientific software developer >> Enthought, Inc. >> jrocher at enthought.com >> 1-512-536-1057 >> http://www.enthought.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From scopatz at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 12:09:48 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:09:48 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Serge, This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an issue now. Be Well Anthony On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote: > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference in > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on > parallel processing in python > (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949). > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. > > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do > this effectively. > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the UMich > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few words > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with the > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy is > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and contacts. > > > > -Matt > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher > wrote: > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to advertize > for > >> SciPy. > >> > >> Jonathan > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: > >> > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences we > all > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting at) > >>> between now and July came. > >>> > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If > not, > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? > >>> > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: > >>> > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov > 12-13, > >>> 2013) > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, > 2014) > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, > Finland > >>> June 2014) > >>> > >>> s. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation > >>> Arizona State University > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey > >>> > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD > >> Scientific software developer > >> Enthought, Inc. > >> jrocher at enthought.com > >> 1-512-536-1057 > >> http://www.enthought.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From bmurphy at enthought.com Thu Nov 7 12:15:10 2013 From: bmurphy at enthought.com (Brett Murphy) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:15:10 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What is the best way to get the word out at these events? Should we have handouts? Perhaps we could create a 1-pager that is easy for all of us to print out ourselves on standard paper, color or B&W? -- Brett Brett Murphy Enthought, Inc. bmurphy at enthought.com 512-536-1057 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > Hi Serge, > > This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an issue > now. > > Be Well > Anthony > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote: > > > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference in > > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on > > parallel processing in python > > (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949). > > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. > > > > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the > > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do > > this effectively. > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the UMich > > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities > > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few words > > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with the > > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy is > > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and contacts. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher < > jrocher at enthought.com> > > wrote: > > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb > > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to advertize > > for > > >> SciPy. > > >> > > >> Jonathan > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi All, > > >>> > > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences > we > > all > > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting > at) > > >>> between now and July came. > > >>> > > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If > > not, > > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? > > >>> > > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: > > >>> > > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov > > 12-13, > > >>> 2013) > > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, > > 2014) > > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) > > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, > > Finland > > >>> June 2014) > > >>> > > >>> s. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey > > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning > > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation > > >>> Arizona State University > > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey > > >>> > > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review > > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > >> Scientific software developer > > >> Enthought, Inc. > > >> jrocher at enthought.com > > >> 1-512-536-1057 > > >> http://www.enthought.com > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From andy.terrel at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 12:17:19 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:17:19 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah a 1-pager would be great. It would also be good to create some stickers. -- Andy On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brett Murphy wrote: > What is the best way to get the word out at these events? Should we have > handouts? Perhaps we could create a 1-pager that is easy for all of us to > print out ourselves on standard paper, color or B&W? > > -- Brett > > > Brett Murphy > Enthought, Inc. > bmurphy at enthought.com > 512-536-1057 > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > >> Hi Serge, >> >> This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an issue >> now. >> >> Be Well >> Anthony >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote: >> >> > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference in >> > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on >> > parallel processing in python >> > (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949). >> > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. >> > >> > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the >> > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do >> > this effectively. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk >> > wrote: >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the UMich >> > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities >> > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few words >> > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with the >> > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy is >> > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and contacts. >> > > >> > > -Matt >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher < >> jrocher at enthought.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb >> > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to advertize >> > for >> > >> SciPy. >> > >> >> > >> Jonathan >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Hi All, >> > >>> >> > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other conferences >> we >> > all >> > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this meeting >> at) >> > >>> between now and July came. >> > >>> >> > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing it. If >> > not, >> > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? >> > >>> >> > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: >> > >>> >> > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, Nov >> > 12-13, >> > >>> 2013) >> > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, >> > 2014) >> > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) >> > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, >> > Finland >> > >>> June 2014) >> > >>> >> > >>> s. >> > >>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey >> > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning >> > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation >> > >>> Arizona State University >> > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey >> > >>> >> > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review >> > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD >> > >> Scientific software developer >> > >> Enthought, Inc. >> > >> jrocher at enthought.com >> > >> 1-512-536-1057 >> > >> http://www.enthought.com >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From bmurphy at enthought.com Thu Nov 7 12:20:24 2013 From: bmurphy at enthought.com (Brett Murphy) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:20:24 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stickers to hand out ahead of time or for attendees? -- Brett Brett Murphy Enthought, Inc. bmurphy at enthought.com 512-536-1057 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > Yeah a 1-pager would be great. It would also be good to create some > stickers. > > -- Andy > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brett Murphy > wrote: > > What is the best way to get the word out at these events? Should we have > > handouts? Perhaps we could create a 1-pager that is easy for all of us to > > print out ourselves on standard paper, color or B&W? > > > > -- Brett > > > > > > Brett Murphy > > Enthought, Inc. > > bmurphy at enthought.com > > 512-536-1057 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Anthony Scopatz > wrote: > > > >> Hi Serge, > >> > >> This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an issue > >> now. > >> > >> Be Well > >> Anthony > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli > wrote: > >> > >> > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference in > >> > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on > >> > parallel processing in python > >> > (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949 > ). > >> > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. > >> > > >> > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the > >> > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do > >> > this effectively. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk > >> > wrote: > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the > UMich > >> > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities > >> > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few > words > >> > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with > the > >> > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy > is > >> > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and > contacts. > >> > > > >> > > -Matt > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher < > >> jrocher at enthought.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb > >> > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to > advertize > >> > for > >> > >> SciPy. > >> > >> > >> > >> Jonathan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi All, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other > conferences > >> we > >> > all > >> > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this > meeting > >> at) > >> > >>> between now and July came. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing > it. If > >> > not, > >> > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, > Nov > >> > 12-13, > >> > >>> 2013) > >> > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, > >> > 2014) > >> > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) > >> > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, > >> > Finland > >> > >>> June 2014) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> s. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey > >> > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning > >> > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation > >> > >>> Arizona State University > >> > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review > >> > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD > >> > >> Scientific software developer > >> > >> Enthought, Inc. > >> > >> jrocher at enthought.com > >> > >> 1-512-536-1057 > >> > >> http://www.enthought.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From scopatz at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 12:20:30 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:20:30 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great question Brett! We definitely need a one page document, stickers, potential other handouts, and a grab-and-go lighting talk for people to use. Be Well Anthony On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > Yeah a 1-pager would be great. It would also be good to create some > stickers. > > -- Andy > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brett Murphy > wrote: > > What is the best way to get the word out at these events? Should we have > > handouts? Perhaps we could create a 1-pager that is easy for all of us to > > print out ourselves on standard paper, color or B&W? > > > > -- Brett > > > > > > Brett Murphy > > Enthought, Inc. > > bmurphy at enthought.com > > 512-536-1057 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Anthony Scopatz > wrote: > > > >> Hi Serge, > >> > >> This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an issue > >> now. > >> > >> Be Well > >> Anthony > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli > wrote: > >> > >> > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference in > >> > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on > >> > parallel processing in python > >> > (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949 > ). > >> > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. > >> > > >> > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the > >> > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do > >> > this effectively. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk > >> > wrote: > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the > UMich > >> > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at universities > >> > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few > words > >> > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with > the > >> > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad SciPy > is > >> > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and > contacts. > >> > > > >> > > -Matt > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher < > >> jrocher at enthought.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference Feb > >> > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to > advertize > >> > for > >> > >> SciPy. > >> > >> > >> > >> Jonathan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi All, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other > conferences > >> we > >> > all > >> > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this > meeting > >> at) > >> > >>> between now and July came. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing > it. If > >> > not, > >> > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, > Nov > >> > 12-13, > >> > >>> 2013) > >> > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February 16-19, > >> > 2014) > >> > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) > >> > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, > >> > Finland > >> > >>> June 2014) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> s. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey > >> > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning > >> > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation > >> > >>> Arizona State University > >> > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review > >> > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD > >> > >> Scientific software developer > >> > >> Enthought, Inc. > >> > >> jrocher at enthought.com > >> > >> 1-512-536-1057 > >> > >> http://www.enthought.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From bmurphy at enthought.com Thu Nov 7 17:17:20 2013 From: bmurphy at enthought.com (Brett Murphy) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:17:20 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll work on a draft doc for the 1-pager. And I'll ask Jim to work up a sticker design. Enthought has a pretty good sticker vendor that we can use. The grab-n-go lightening talk makes good sense. But that one I'll leave to you or someone else. :-) -- Brett Brett Murphy Enthought, Inc. bmurphy at enthought.com 512-536-1057 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > Great question Brett! > > We definitely need a one page document, stickers, potential other > handouts, and a grab-and-go lighting talk for people to use. > > Be Well > Anthony > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >> Yeah a 1-pager would be great. It would also be good to create some >> stickers. >> >> -- Andy >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brett Murphy >> wrote: >> > What is the best way to get the word out at these events? Should we have >> > handouts? Perhaps we could create a 1-pager that is easy for all of us >> to >> > print out ourselves on standard paper, color or B&W? >> > >> > -- Brett >> > >> > >> > Brett Murphy >> > Enthought, Inc. >> > bmurphy at enthought.com >> > 512-536-1057 >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Anthony Scopatz >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Serge, >> >> >> >> This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an issue >> >> now. >> >> >> >> Be Well >> >> Anthony >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference >> in >> >> > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium on >> >> > parallel processing in python >> >> > (http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949 >> ). >> >> > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. >> >> > >> >> > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting the >> >> > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even do >> >> > this effectively. >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > Hi all, >> >> > > >> >> > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the >> UMich >> >> > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at >> universities >> >> > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few >> words >> >> > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar with >> the >> >> > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad >> SciPy is >> >> > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and >> contacts. >> >> > > >> >> > > -Matt >> >> > > >> >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher < >> >> jrocher at enthought.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference >> Feb >> >> > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to >> advertize >> >> > for >> >> > >> SciPy. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Jonathan >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >>> Hi All, >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other >> conferences >> >> we >> >> > all >> >> > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this >> meeting >> >> at) >> >> > >>> between now and July came. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing >> it. If >> >> > not, >> >> > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, >> Nov >> >> > 12-13, >> >> > >>> 2013) >> >> > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February >> 16-19, >> >> > 2014) >> >> > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) >> >> > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium (Espoo, >> >> > Finland >> >> > >>> June 2014) >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> s. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> -- >> >> > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey >> >> > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning >> >> > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation >> >> > >>> Arizona State University >> >> > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review >> >> > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com >> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> >> > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> >> > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> -- >> >> > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD >> >> > >> Scientific software developer >> >> > >> Enthought, Inc. >> >> > >> jrocher at enthought.com >> >> > >> 1-512-536-1057 >> >> > >> http://www.enthought.com >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> >> > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > From scopatz at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 17:29:14 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:29:14 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Outreach/pr at other conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Brett! That sounds great! On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Brett Murphy wrote: > I'll work on a draft doc for the 1-pager. And I'll ask Jim to work up a > sticker design. Enthought has a pretty good sticker vendor that we can use. > The grab-n-go lightening talk makes good sense. But that one I'll leave to > you or someone else. :-) > > -- Brett > > > Brett Murphy > Enthought, Inc. > bmurphy at enthought.com > 512-536-1057 > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > >> Great question Brett! >> >> We definitely need a one page document, stickers, potential other >> handouts, and a grab-and-go lighting talk for people to use. >> >> Be Well >> Anthony >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: >> >>> Yeah a 1-pager would be great. It would also be good to create some >>> stickers. >>> >>> -- Andy >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brett Murphy >>> wrote: >>> > What is the best way to get the word out at these events? Should we >>> have >>> > handouts? Perhaps we could create a 1-pager that is easy for all of us >>> to >>> > print out ourselves on standard paper, color or B&W? >>> > >>> > -- Brett >>> > >>> > >>> > Brett Murphy >>> > Enthought, Inc. >>> > bmurphy at enthought.com >>> > 512-536-1057 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Anthony Scopatz >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Serge, >>> >> >>> >> This is my job, and I have not done it yet. Sorry. I'll open an >>> issue >>> >> now. >>> >> >>> >> Be Well >>> >> Anthony >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mandli >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > There will be a lot of us at the SIAM Parllel Processing conference >>> in >>> >> > Portland, OR this February, in particular there's a mini-symposium >>> on >>> >> > parallel processing in python >>> >> > ( >>> http://meetings.siam.org/sess/dsp_programsess.cfm?SESSIONCODE=17949). >>> >> > The best thing would be to have the organizers maybe advertise it. >>> >> > >>> >> > On the geospatial end of things, has anyone thought about getting >>> the >>> >> > word out at the AGU fall meeting? I am not sure how we would even >>> do >>> >> > this effectively. >>> >> > >>> >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk >> > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > > Hi all, >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I'll be advertising SciPy at PyHPC at SC13 this year and at the >>> UMich >>> >> > > CI Days next week. I would encourage anybody that's at >>> universities >>> >> > > or at local computationally-focused gatherings to drop in a few >>> words >>> >> > > about SciPy, as there may be a lot of people who are familiar >>> with the >>> >> > > scientific software ecosystem that haven't realized how broad >>> SciPy is >>> >> > > and how useful it can be for cross-pollination of ideas and >>> contacts. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > -Matt >>> >> > > >>> >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Rocher < >>> >> jrocher at enthought.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> And I will go to the American Meteorological Society conference >>> Feb >>> >> > >> 2nd-6th. GIS is always a theme there and I will make sure to >>> advertize >>> >> > for >>> >> > >> SciPy. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Jonathan >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Serge Rey wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>> Hi All, >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Last week,I believe the idea of identifying which other >>> conferences >>> >> we >>> >> > all >>> >> > >>> may be planning on going to (and spread the word about this >>> meeting >>> >> at) >>> >> > >>> between now and July came. >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> If one of you had started such a page, I apologize for missing >>> it. If >>> >> > not, >>> >> > >>> where should we put it to start populating it? >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Here are some I can cover on the geospatial front: >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> - Regional Science Association International Meetings (Atlanta, >>> Nov >>> >> > 12-13, >>> >> > >>> 2013) >>> >> > >>> - Western Regional Science Association (San Diego, February >>> 16-19, >>> >> > 2014) >>> >> > >>> - Association of American Geographers (Tampa, April 8-12, 2014) >>> >> > >>> - Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium >>> (Espoo, >>> >> > Finland >>> >> > >>> June 2014) >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> s. >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> -- >>> >> > >>> Sergio (Serge) Rey >>> >> > >>> Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning >>> >> > >>> GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation >>> >> > >>> Arizona State University >>> >> > >>> http://geoplan.asu.edu/rey >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Editor, International Regional Science Review >>> >> > >>> http://irx.sagepub.com >>> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> >> > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> >> > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> -- >>> >> > >> Jonathan Rocher, PhD >>> >> > >> Scientific software developer >>> >> > >> Enthought, Inc. >>> >> > >> jrocher at enthought.com >>> >> > >> 1-512-536-1057 >>> >> > >> http://www.enthought.com >>> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> >> > From katyhuff at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 17:54:32 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:54:32 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? Message-ID: Hi Ya'll. We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and papers. That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we could get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive to review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we could offer stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for reviewers at various "levels." That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be told that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, "silver level" for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something like that ) Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling something among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better one? Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is mostly directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could raffle? Thanks! Katy (your friendly program co-chair) * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference growth (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 abstracts to be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's approximately a bajillion. -- http://katyhuff.github.com From katyhuff at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 18:08:42 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:08:42 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? Message-ID: Hi all, Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the SciPy program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia are great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could highlight in order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may need to be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to suggest! For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : - 2013 : - Bionformatics - Astro - GIS - Meteorology/Oceanography - Medical Imaging - 2012 - Astro - Geophysics - Bioinformatics - Meteorology -- http://katyhuff.github.com From jrocher at enthought.com Thu Nov 7 18:34:15 2013 From: jrocher at enthought.com (Jonathan Rocher) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:34:15 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Katy, I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at the end :D. I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and almost not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We could also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special tee-shirt "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. Jonathan On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > Hi Ya'll. > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and papers. > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we could > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive to > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we could offer > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for reviewers at > various "levels." > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be told > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, "silver level" > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something like that ) > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling something > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better one? > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is mostly > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could raffle? > > Thanks! > Katy > (your friendly program co-chair) > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference growth > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 abstracts to > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's approximately > a bajillion. > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Jonathan Rocher, PhD Scientific software developer Enthought, Inc. jrocher at enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com From james.bergstra at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 18:38:45 2013 From: james.bergstra at gmail.com (James Bergstra) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:38:45 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" laptop sticker. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher wrote: > Katy, > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at the end > :D. > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and almost > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We could > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special tee-shirt > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > > Jonathan > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > > Hi Ya'll. > > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and papers. > > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we could > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive to > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we could > offer > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for reviewers at > > various "levels." > > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be told > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, "silver > level" > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something like > that ) > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. > > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling something > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. > > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better one? > > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is mostly > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could raffle? > > > > Thanks! > > Katy > > (your friendly program co-chair) > > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference growth > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 abstracts to > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's > approximately > > a bajillion. > > > > > > -- > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > -- > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > Scientific software developer > Enthought, Inc. > jrocher at enthought.com > 1-512-536-1057 > http://www.enthought.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From matt at mmmccormick.com Thu Nov 7 19:12:14 2013 From: matt at mmmccormick.com (Matthew McCormick (thewtex)) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, http://openbadges.org/ This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's contributions. They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn profile, etc. Matt On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra wrote: > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" laptop > sticker. > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher >wrote: > > > Katy, > > > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at the > end > > :D. > > > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and almost > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We could > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special tee-shirt > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > > > > Hi Ya'll. > > > > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and > papers. > > > > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we > could > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive to > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we could > > offer > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for reviewers at > > > various "levels." > > > > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be told > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, "silver > > level" > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something like > > that ) > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. > > > > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling something > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. > > > > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better one? > > > > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is > mostly > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could raffle? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Katy > > > (your friendly program co-chair) > > > > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference growth > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 abstracts > to > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's > > approximately > > > a bajillion. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > Scientific software developer > > Enthought, Inc. > > jrocher at enthought.com > > 1-512-536-1057 > > http://www.enthought.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From scopatz at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 19:15:04 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:15:04 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: spidr, I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I am anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see people walking around the conference with collections of the various ways that they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully in the same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be throughout the year. /scopzout On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > +1 > > Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, > > http://openbadges.org/ > > This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's contributions. > They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn profile, > etc. > > Matt > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra >wrote: > > > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" laptop > > sticker. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher > >wrote: > > > > > Katy, > > > > > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at the > > end > > > :D. > > > > > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and > almost > > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We could > > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special > tee-shirt > > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ya'll. > > > > > > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and > > papers. > > > > > > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we > > could > > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive to > > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we could > > > offer > > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for reviewers > at > > > > various "levels." > > > > > > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be > told > > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, "silver > > > level" > > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something like > > > that ) > > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. > > > > > > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling > something > > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. > > > > > > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better one? > > > > > > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is > > mostly > > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could raffle? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Katy > > > > (your friendly program co-chair) > > > > > > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference > growth > > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 > abstracts > > to > > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's > > > approximately > > > > a bajillion. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > > Scientific software developer > > > Enthought, Inc. > > > jrocher at enthought.com > > > 1-512-536-1057 > > > http://www.enthought.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From matt at mmmccormick.com Thu Nov 7 19:28:08 2013 From: matt at mmmccormick.com (Matthew McCormick (thewtex)) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:28:08 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: /spidrin Yes, I personally love stickers :-). Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could use? We could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That would be sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a design to create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular moderator lab coats last year? I can setup the virtual badges. /spidrout On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > spidr, > > I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I am > anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see people > walking around the conference with collections of the various ways that > they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully in the > same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be throughout > the year. > > /scopzout > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, >> >> http://openbadges.org/ >> >> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's contributions. >> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn profile, >> etc. >> >> Matt >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra > >wrote: >> >> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" laptop >> > sticker. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher > > >wrote: >> > >> > > Katy, >> > > >> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at the >> > end >> > > :D. >> > > >> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and >> almost >> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We >> could >> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special >> tee-shirt >> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. >> > > >> > > Jonathan >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Ya'll. >> > > > >> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and >> > papers. >> > > > >> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we >> > could >> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive >> to >> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we could >> > > offer >> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for >> reviewers at >> > > > various "levels." >> > > > >> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be >> told >> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, "silver >> > > level" >> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something like >> > > that ) >> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. >> > > > >> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling >> something >> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. >> > > > >> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better >> one? >> > > > >> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is >> > mostly >> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could raffle? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks! >> > > > Katy >> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) >> > > > >> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference >> growth >> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 >> abstracts >> > to >> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's >> > > approximately >> > > > a bajillion. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD >> > > Scientific software developer >> > > Enthought, Inc. >> > > jrocher at enthought.com >> > > 1-512-536-1057 >> > > http://www.enthought.com >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > From scopatz at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 02:57:23 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:57:23 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > /spidrin > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could use? We > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That would be > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a design to > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular moderator lab > coats last year? > So the design we used was just the one on the website: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, it was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a lot here... > I can setup the virtual badges. > Awesome! > > /spidrout > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > >> spidr, >> >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I am >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see people >> walking around the conference with collections of the various ways that >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully in the >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be throughout >> the year. >> >> /scopzout >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, >>> >>> http://openbadges.org/ >>> >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's contributions. >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn profile, >>> etc. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra >> >wrote: >>> >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" >>> laptop >>> > sticker. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher >> > >wrote: >>> > >>> > > Katy, >>> > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at >>> the >>> > end >>> > > :D. >>> > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and >>> almost >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We >>> could >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special >>> tee-shirt >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. >>> > > >>> > > Jonathan >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. >>> > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and >>> > papers. >>> > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested we >>> > could >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some incentive >>> to >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we >>> could >>> > > offer >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for >>> reviewers at >>> > > > various "levels." >>> > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would be >>> told >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, >>> "silver >>> > > level" >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something >>> like >>> > > that ) >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. >>> > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling >>> something >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be great. >>> > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better >>> one? >>> > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question is >>> > mostly >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could >>> raffle? >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks! >>> > > > Katy >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) >>> > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference >>> growth >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 >>> abstracts >>> > to >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's >>> > > approximately >>> > > > a bajillion. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD >>> > > Scientific software developer >>> > > Enthought, Inc. >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 >>> > > http://www.enthought.com >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> >> > From matthewturk at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 09:30:07 2013 From: matthewturk at gmail.com (Matthew Turk) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Katy, On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > Hi all, > > Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the SciPy > program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those > mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > > Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia are > great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could highlight in > order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for > domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may need to > be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). > > I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can > please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to suggest! > > For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > > > - 2013 : > - Bionformatics > - Astro > - GIS > - Meteorology/Oceanography > - Medical Imaging > - 2012 > - Astro > - Geophysics > - Bioinformatics > - Meteorology > > I think the 2013 list is quite good; is the idea to continue growing, or were there any symposia that didn't work as well as had been hoped? The debrief suggests the lowest ranked was Medical Imaging, but lowest here was 3.73 (out of 5) versus the next highest up of 4.08 for Astro. (And I attended the Astro mini-Symp and thought it was quite good and did a good job of bringing new people to the conference.) Other ideas that come to mind: * Add back on Geophysics * HEP * Computer Vision -Matt > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From bmurphy at enthought.com Fri Nov 8 09:35:17 2013 From: bmurphy at enthought.com (Brett Murphy) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:35:17 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Geophysics would be a good one to have back. -- Brett Brett Murphy Enthought, Inc. bmurphy at enthought.com 512-536-1057 On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Matthew Turk wrote: > Hi Katy, > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the SciPy > > program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those > > mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia are > > great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could highlight > in > > order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for > > domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may need > to > > be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). > > > > I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can > > please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > > interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to > suggest! > > > > For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > > > > > > - 2013 : > > - Bionformatics > > - Astro > > - GIS > > - Meteorology/Oceanography > > - Medical Imaging > > - 2012 > > - Astro > > - Geophysics > > - Bioinformatics > > - Meteorology > > > > > > I think the 2013 list is quite good; is the idea to continue growing, > or were there any symposia that didn't work as well as had been hoped? > The debrief suggests the lowest ranked was Medical Imaging, but > lowest here was 3.73 (out of 5) versus the next highest up of 4.08 for > Astro. (And I attended the Astro mini-Symp and thought it was quite > good and did a good job of bringing new people to the conference.) > > Other ideas that come to mind: > > * Add back on Geophysics > * HEP > * Computer Vision > > -Matt > > > > > > > -- > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From jrocher at enthought.com Fri Nov 8 10:39:47 2013 From: jrocher at enthought.com (Jonathan Rocher) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:39:47 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a couple of image files we used last year in: https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images Hope this helps. Jonathan On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > > /spidrin > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could use? We > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That would be > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a design to > > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular moderator lab > > coats last year? > > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website: > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, it > was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a lot > here... > > > > I can setup the virtual badges. > > > > Awesome! > > > > > > /spidrout > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz > wrote: > > > >> spidr, > >> > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I am > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see people > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various ways that > >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully in > the > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be > throughout > >> the year. > >> > >> /scopzout > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, > >>> > >>> http://openbadges.org/ > >>> > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's contributions. > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn profile, > >>> etc. > >>> > >>> Matt > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra < > james.bergstra at gmail.com > >>> >wrote: > >>> > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" > >>> laptop > >>> > sticker. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher < > jrocher at enthought.com > >>> > >wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Katy, > >>> > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion at > >>> the > >>> > end > >>> > > :D. > >>> > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle and > >>> almost > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We > >>> could > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special > >>> tee-shirt > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > >>> > > > >>> > > Jonathan > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts and > >>> > papers. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested > we > >>> > could > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some > incentive > >>> to > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we > >>> could > >>> > > offer > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for > >>> reviewers at > >>> > > > various "levels." > >>> > > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would > be > >>> told > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, > >>> "silver > >>> > > level" > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something > >>> like > >>> > > that ) > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 reviews. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling > >>> something > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be > great. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a better > >>> one? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question > is > >>> > mostly > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could > >>> raffle? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks! > >>> > > > Katy > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) > >>> > > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% conference > >>> growth > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 > >>> abstracts > >>> > to > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's > >>> > > approximately > >>> > > > a bajillion. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > >>> > > Scientific software developer > >>> > > Enthought, Inc. > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >>> > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >>> > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Jonathan Rocher, PhD Scientific software developer Enthought, Inc. jrocher at enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com From jrocher at enthought.com Fri Nov 8 10:53:02 2013 From: jrocher at enthought.com (Jonathan Rocher) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:53:02 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Katy, On this topics, let me bring a couple of points. 1. last year, we conducted a poll and the following themes came out: - Computer vision - Medical imaging - Meteorology, climatology, and atmospheric science - Astronomy/Astrophysics (4th ex-aequo) - Renewable Energy (4th ex-aequo) - Bio-informatics (6th ex-aequo) - Geophysics (6th ex-aequo) - Gaming (6th ex-aequo) - Aerospace (9th ex-aequo) - Genomics (9th ex-aequo) The complete data of the poll was just posted at: https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/blob/master/data/mini-symposia-poll_data2013.csv 2. Stating the obvious, I think probing the community was very successful and I would recommend we do that again. It doesn't force us to only do what the poll says, but it engages the community and gives us indications. 3. For reminder, interesting data was compiled in there as well: past/potential champions, and more: https://docs.google.com/a/enthought.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkaWhpyUcjRIdDNDNGpCZ01JY1VxenBVNFNJYW9iQVE#gid=1 Probably stating the obvious again since you put it in place but I thought I would remind anyway. HTH, Jonathan On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Brett Murphy wrote: > Geophysics would be a good one to have back. > > -- Brett > > > Brett Murphy > Enthought, Inc. > bmurphy at enthought.com > 512-536-1057 > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Matthew Turk > wrote: > > > Hi Katy, > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the > SciPy > > > program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those > > > mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > > > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia > are > > > great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could > highlight > > in > > > order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for > > > domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may > need > > to > > > be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). > > > > > > I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can > > > please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > > > interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to > > suggest! > > > > > > For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > > > > > > > > > - 2013 : > > > - Bionformatics > > > - Astro > > > - GIS > > > - Meteorology/Oceanography > > > - Medical Imaging > > > - 2012 > > > - Astro > > > - Geophysics > > > - Bioinformatics > > > - Meteorology > > > > > > > > > > I think the 2013 list is quite good; is the idea to continue growing, > > or were there any symposia that didn't work as well as had been hoped? > > The debrief suggests the lowest ranked was Medical Imaging, but > > lowest here was 3.73 (out of 5) versus the next highest up of 4.08 for > > Astro. (And I attended the Astro mini-Symp and thought it was quite > > good and did a good job of bringing new people to the conference.) > > > > Other ideas that come to mind: > > > > * Add back on Geophysics > > * HEP > > * Computer Vision > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Jonathan Rocher, PhD Scientific software developer Enthought, Inc. jrocher at enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com From kyle.mandli at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 11:38:09 2013 From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:38:09 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from industry. Here's the text of the email: "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on Engineering/Manufacturing or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to attract other python developers from industry to participate." Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it to be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I think their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much broader context. Kyle On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > Hi all, > > Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the SciPy > program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those > mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > > Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia are > great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could highlight in > order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for > domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may need to > be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). > > I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can > please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to suggest! > > For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > > > - 2013 : > - Bionformatics > - Astro > - GIS > - Meteorology/Oceanography > - Medical Imaging > - 2012 > - Astro > - Geophysics > - Bioinformatics > - Meteorology > > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From andy.terrel at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 11:48:34 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:48:34 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the Industrial use of Python is a much needed complement to the conference. I would actually propose a system where folks can put forward their own domain mini-symposium ideas. Since we will have an extra day, we need to figure out how we are going to expand in this realm vs more talks vs more bofs. -- Andy On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote: > Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on > engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also > volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from > industry. Here's the text of the email: > > "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on Engineering/Manufacturing > or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I > (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and > present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to > attract other python developers from industry to participate." > > Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it to > be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a > larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the > list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I think > their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much > broader context. > > Kyle > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the SciPy >> program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those >> mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. >> >> Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia are >> great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could highlight in >> order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for >> domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may need to >> be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). >> >> I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can >> please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely >> interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to suggest! >> >> For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : >> >> >> - 2013 : >> - Bionformatics >> - Astro >> - GIS >> - Meteorology/Oceanography >> - Medical Imaging >> - 2012 >> - Astro >> - Geophysics >> - Bioinformatics >> - Meteorology >> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://katyhuff.github.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From katyhuff at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 12:56:08 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:56:08 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks so much for all of this input, everyone! @mattturk : I also think HEP might have some significant participation. I would be curious about the depth of the networks you're aware of. If we end up doing an HEP , I may call on you to help us flesh out the field of contributors. @brettmurphy : I think you're right. Especially in the context of a GIS main theme, attendees are likely to have simultaneous domain interest in geophysics. @Jonathan : Thanks for this data! This is perfect. I had either forgotten or completely missed that we collected this. This will be very helpful in guiding our choices. I really appreciate it. @kylemandli & @andyterrell : Excellent thoughts! I think you're absolutely right that an industrial track would be great. If we do this, I will definitely call on you to help us flesh out the field of contributors via any contacts you have in the domain. Another suggestion, by Serge, was a "digital humanities" mini symposium. Strangely enough, by virtue of being at Berkeley where the D-Lab is located, I do know a number of people in various humanities who are using a scipy type stack. What do people think about this? Excellent work, folks! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate all of your input. I think we'll have an excellent program this year. !! Katy On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > I think the Industrial use of Python is a much needed complement to > the conference. > > I would actually propose a system where folks can put forward their > own domain mini-symposium ideas. Since we will have an extra day, we > need to figure out how we are going to expand in this realm vs more > talks vs more bofs. > > -- Andy > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Kyle Mandli > wrote: > > Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on > > engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also > > volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from > > industry. Here's the text of the email: > > > > "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on Engineering/Manufacturing > > or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I > > (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and > > present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to > > attract other python developers from industry to participate." > > > > Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it to > > be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a > > larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the > > list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I think > > their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much > > broader context. > > > > Kyle > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the > SciPy > >> program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those > >> mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > >> > >> Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia > are > >> great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could > highlight in > >> order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for > >> domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may > need to > >> be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). > >> > >> I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can > >> please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > >> interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to > suggest! > >> > >> For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > >> > >> > >> - 2013 : > >> - Bionformatics > >> - Astro > >> - GIS > >> - Meteorology/Oceanography > >> - Medical Imaging > >> - 2012 > >> - Astro > >> - Geophysics > >> - Bioinformatics > >> - Meteorology > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://katyhuff.github.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From bmurphy at enthought.com Fri Nov 8 13:04:24 2013 From: bmurphy at enthought.com (Brett Murphy) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:04:24 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If I had to choose between Geophysics and trying Boeing's suggestion, I would prioritize the Boeing one. My 2 cents. -- Brett Brett Murphy Enthought, Inc. bmurphy at enthought.com 512-536-1057 On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Katy Huff wrote: > Thanks so much for all of this input, everyone! > > @mattturk : I also think HEP might have some significant participation. I > would be curious about the depth of the networks you're aware of. If we end > up doing an HEP , I may call on you to help us flesh out the field of > contributors. > > @brettmurphy : I think you're right. Especially in the context of a GIS > main theme, attendees are likely to have simultaneous domain interest in > geophysics. > > @Jonathan : Thanks for this data! This is perfect. I had either forgotten > or completely missed that we collected this. This will be very helpful in > guiding our choices. I really appreciate it. > > @kylemandli & @andyterrell : Excellent thoughts! I think you're absolutely > right that an industrial track would be great. If we do this, I will > definitely call on you to help us flesh out the field of contributors via > any contacts you have in the domain. > > Another suggestion, by Serge, was a "digital humanities" mini symposium. > Strangely enough, by virtue of being at Berkeley where the D-Lab is > located, I do know a number of people in various humanities who are using a > scipy type stack. What do people think about this? > > Excellent work, folks! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I really > appreciate all of your input. I think we'll have an excellent program this > year. > > !! > Katy > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Andy Ray Terrel >wrote: > > > I think the Industrial use of Python is a much needed complement to > > the conference. > > > > I would actually propose a system where folks can put forward their > > own domain mini-symposium ideas. Since we will have an extra day, we > > need to figure out how we are going to expand in this realm vs more > > talks vs more bofs. > > > > -- Andy > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Kyle Mandli > > wrote: > > > Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on > > > engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also > > > volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from > > > industry. Here's the text of the email: > > > > > > "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on Engineering/Manufacturing > > > or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I > > > (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and > > > present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to > > > attract other python developers from industry to participate." > > > > > > Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it to > > > be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a > > > larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the > > > list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I think > > > their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much > > > broader context. > > > > > > Kyle > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the > > SciPy > > >> program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains > those > > >> mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > > >> > > >> Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia > > are > > >> great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could > > highlight in > > >> order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for > > >> domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may > > need to > > >> be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). > > >> > > >> I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone > can > > >> please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > > >> interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to > > suggest! > > >> > > >> For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > > >> > > >> > > >> - 2013 : > > >> - Bionformatics > > >> - Astro > > >> - GIS > > >> - Meteorology/Oceanography > > >> - Medical Imaging > > >> - 2012 > > >> - Astro > > >> - Geophysics > > >> - Bioinformatics > > >> - Meteorology > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> http://katyhuff.github.com > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From katyhuff at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 13:07:01 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:07:01 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is fantastic, everyone! It sounds like it would be totally feasible, then, to have at least simple little bronze/silver/gold star stickers on the physical badges, supported virtually by mozilla open badges (thanks spidr!), and a potential physical-stuff raffle for folks. Thanks! We'll iron the details of these thoughts our as all it gets closer. For now, we'll just be prepared to tell potential reviewers that they will be honored at various levels and may qualify for a raffle. Thanks!!! Katy On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Rocher wrote: > Hi all, > > I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a couple of > image files we used last year in: > https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images > > Hope this helps. > Jonathan > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > > > > /spidrin > > > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). > > > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could use? We > > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That would be > > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a design > to > > > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular moderator > lab > > > coats last year? > > > > > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website: > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, > it > > was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a lot > > here... > > > > > > > I can setup the virtual badges. > > > > > > > Awesome! > > > > > > > > > > /spidrout > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz > > wrote: > > > > > >> spidr, > > >> > > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I am > > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see people > > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various ways > that > > >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully in > > the > > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be > > throughout > > >> the year. > > >> > > >> /scopzout > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 > > >>> > > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, > > >>> > > >>> http://openbadges.org/ > > >>> > > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's > contributions. > > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn > profile, > > >>> etc. > > >>> > > >>> Matt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra < > > james.bergstra at gmail.com > > >>> >wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" > > >>> laptop > > >>> > sticker. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher < > > jrocher at enthought.com > > >>> > >wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > Katy, > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion > at > > >>> the > > >>> > end > > >>> > > :D. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle > and > > >>> almost > > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. We > > >>> could > > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special > > >>> tee-shirt > > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Jonathan > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts > and > > >>> > papers. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He suggested > > we > > >>> > could > > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some > > incentive > > >>> to > > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested we > > >>> could > > >>> > > offer > > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for > > >>> reviewers at > > >>> > > > various "levels." > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they would > > be > > >>> told > > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, > > >>> "silver > > >>> > > level" > > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or something > > >>> like > > >>> > > that ) > > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 > reviews. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling > > >>> something > > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be > > great. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a > better > > >>> one? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this question > > is > > >>> > mostly > > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could > > >>> raffle? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks! > > >>> > > > Katy > > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% > conference > > >>> growth > > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 > > >>> abstracts > > >>> > to > > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's > > >>> > > approximately > > >>> > > > a bajillion. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > -- > > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > >>> > > Scientific software developer > > >>> > > Enthought, Inc. > > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com > > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 > > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > >>> > > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > -- > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > Scientific software developer > Enthought, Inc. > jrocher at enthought.com > 1-512-536-1057 > http://www.enthought.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From katyhuff at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 13:07:43 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:07:43 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Brett Murphy wrote: > If I had to choose between Geophysics and trying Boeing's suggestion, I > would prioritize the Boeing one. My 2 cents. > Noted. :) > > -- Brett > > > Brett Murphy > Enthought, Inc. > bmurphy at enthought.com > 512-536-1057 > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Katy Huff wrote: > >> Thanks so much for all of this input, everyone! >> >> @mattturk : I also think HEP might have some significant participation. I >> would be curious about the depth of the networks you're aware of. If we >> end >> up doing an HEP , I may call on you to help us flesh out the field of >> contributors. >> >> @brettmurphy : I think you're right. Especially in the context of a GIS >> main theme, attendees are likely to have simultaneous domain interest in >> geophysics. >> >> @Jonathan : Thanks for this data! This is perfect. I had either forgotten >> or completely missed that we collected this. This will be very helpful in >> guiding our choices. I really appreciate it. >> >> @kylemandli & @andyterrell : Excellent thoughts! I think you're absolutely >> right that an industrial track would be great. If we do this, I will >> definitely call on you to help us flesh out the field of contributors via >> any contacts you have in the domain. >> >> Another suggestion, by Serge, was a "digital humanities" mini symposium. >> Strangely enough, by virtue of being at Berkeley where the D-Lab is >> located, I do know a number of people in various humanities who are using >> a >> scipy type stack. What do people think about this? >> >> Excellent work, folks! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I really >> appreciate all of your input. I think we'll have an excellent program this >> year. >> >> !! >> Katy >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Andy Ray Terrel > >wrote: >> >> > I think the Industrial use of Python is a much needed complement to >> > the conference. >> > >> > I would actually propose a system where folks can put forward their >> > own domain mini-symposium ideas. Since we will have an extra day, we >> > need to figure out how we are going to expand in this realm vs more >> > talks vs more bofs. >> > >> > -- Andy >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Kyle Mandli >> > wrote: >> > > Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on >> > > engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also >> > > volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from >> > > industry. Here's the text of the email: >> > > >> > > "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on Engineering/Manufacturing >> > > or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I >> > > (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and >> > > present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to >> > > attract other python developers from industry to participate." >> > > >> > > Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it to >> > > be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a >> > > larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the >> > > list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I think >> > > their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much >> > > broader context. >> > > >> > > Kyle >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: >> > >> Hi all, >> > >> >> > >> Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the >> > SciPy >> > >> program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains >> those >> > >> mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. >> > >> >> > >> Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia >> > are >> > >> great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could >> > highlight in >> > >> order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for >> > >> domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may >> > need to >> > >> be giving their own special place within the conference (think >> Astro). >> > >> >> > >> I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone >> can >> > >> please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely >> > >> interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to >> > suggest! >> > >> >> > >> For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> - 2013 : >> > >> - Bionformatics >> > >> - Astro >> > >> - GIS >> > >> - Meteorology/Oceanography >> > >> - Medical Imaging >> > >> - 2012 >> > >> - Astro >> > >> - Geophysics >> > >> - Bioinformatics >> > >> - Meteorology >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> http://katyhuff.github.com >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> http://katyhuff.github.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From kthyng at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 13:29:43 2013 From: kthyng at gmail.com (Kristen Thyng) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:29:43 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe this is underlying what you all are discussing, but just in case it isn't: is it assumed that if you submit an abstract/paper/talk, you will be a reviewer too? This is how it has worked for me at other conferences, and I think it is logical. Then it is up to the conference to distribute things needing review to people at least somewhat by discipline, with the understanding that participation in the process is basically required if you want to have your stuff reviewed as well. I guess I don't know how this has worked out at the other conferences I've been at since I wasn't organizing, but I did my part! If that is a requirement, then there would be plenty of reviewers. Kristen On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > This is fantastic, everyone! > It sounds like it would be totally feasible, then, to have at least simple > little bronze/silver/gold star stickers on the physical badges, supported > virtually by mozilla open badges (thanks spidr!), and a potential > physical-stuff raffle for folks. > > Thanks! We'll iron the details of these thoughts our as all it gets closer. > For now, we'll just be prepared to tell potential reviewers that they will > be honored at various levels and may qualify for a raffle. > > Thanks!!! > Katy > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Rocher >wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a couple of > > image files we used last year in: > > https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images > > > > Hope this helps. > > Jonathan > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > > > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > > > > > > /spidrin > > > > > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). > > > > > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could use? > We > > > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That would > be > > > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a design > > to > > > > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular moderator > > lab > > > > coats last year? > > > > > > > > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website: > > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, > > it > > > was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a lot > > > here... > > > > > > > > > > I can setup the virtual badges. > > > > > > > > > > Awesome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /spidrout > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> spidr, > > > >> > > > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I am > > > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see > people > > > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various ways > > that > > > >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully > in > > > the > > > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be > > > throughout > > > >> the year. > > > >> > > > >> /scopzout > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > > > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> +1 > > > >>> > > > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, > > > >>> > > > >>> http://openbadges.org/ > > > >>> > > > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's > > contributions. > > > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn > > profile, > > > >>> etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Matt > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra < > > > james.bergstra at gmail.com > > > >>> >wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy 2013" > > > >>> laptop > > > >>> > sticker. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher < > > > jrocher at enthought.com > > > >>> > >wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Katy, > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a bajillion > > at > > > >>> the > > > >>> > end > > > >>> > > :D. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to raffle > > and > > > >>> almost > > > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these raffles. > We > > > >>> could > > > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a special > > > >>> tee-shirt > > > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Jonathan > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the abstracts > > and > > > >>> > papers. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He > suggested > > > we > > > >>> > could > > > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some > > > incentive > > > >>> to > > > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested > we > > > >>> could > > > >>> > > offer > > > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for > > > >>> reviewers at > > > >>> > > > various "levels." > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they > would > > > be > > > >>> told > > > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 reviews, > > > >>> "silver > > > >>> > > level" > > > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or > something > > > >>> like > > > >>> > > that ) > > > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 > > reviews. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by raffling > > > >>> something > > > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be > > > great. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a > > better > > > >>> one? > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this > question > > > is > > > >>> > mostly > > > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we could > > > >>> raffle? > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks! > > > >>> > > > Katy > > > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% > > conference > > > >>> growth > > > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for 200 > > > >>> abstracts > > > >>> > to > > > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. That's > > > >>> > > approximately > > > >>> > > > a bajillion. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > -- > > > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > > >>> > > Scientific software developer > > > >>> > > Enthought, Inc. > > > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com > > > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 > > > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > Scientific software developer > > Enthought, Inc. > > jrocher at enthought.com > > 1-512-536-1057 > > http://www.enthought.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Kristen M. Thyng Postdoctoral Research Associate Department of Oceanography Texas A&M University http://kristenthyng.com From scopatz at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 13:37:30 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:37:30 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Kristen Thyng wrote: > Maybe this is underlying what you all are discussing, but just in case it > isn't: is it assumed that if you submit an abstract/paper/talk, you will be > a reviewer too? This is how it has worked for me at other conferences, and > I think it is logical. Point of information: This is not how it has worked at SciPy in the past and it isn't how things happen at the PyCons. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other and luckily it isn't in my sphere. Be Well Anthony > Then it is up to the conference to distribute things > needing review to people at least somewhat by discipline, with the > understanding that participation in the process is basically required if > you want to have your stuff reviewed as well. I guess I don't know how this > has worked out at the other conferences I've been at since I wasn't > organizing, but I did my part! If that is a requirement, then there would > be plenty of reviewers. > > Kristen > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > > > This is fantastic, everyone! > > It sounds like it would be totally feasible, then, to have at least > simple > > little bronze/silver/gold star stickers on the physical badges, supported > > virtually by mozilla open badges (thanks spidr!), and a potential > > physical-stuff raffle for folks. > > > > Thanks! We'll iron the details of these thoughts our as all it gets > closer. > > For now, we'll just be prepared to tell potential reviewers that they > will > > be honored at various levels and may qualify for a raffle. > > > > Thanks!!! > > Katy > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Rocher > >wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a couple > of > > > image files we used last year in: > > > > https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images > > > > > > Hope this helps. > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > > > > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > /spidrin > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). > > > > > > > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could use? > > We > > > > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That would > > be > > > > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a > design > > > to > > > > > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular > moderator > > > lab > > > > > coats last year? > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website: > > > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, > > > it > > > > was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a lot > > > > here... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can setup the virtual badges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awesome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /spidrout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> spidr, > > > > >> > > > > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. I > am > > > > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see > > people > > > > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various ways > > > that > > > > >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. Hopefully > > in > > > > the > > > > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be > > > > throughout > > > > >> the year. > > > > >> > > > > >> /scopzout > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < > > > > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> +1 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> http://openbadges.org/ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's > > > contributions. > > > > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn > > > profile, > > > > >>> etc. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Matt > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra < > > > > james.bergstra at gmail.com > > > > >>> >wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy > 2013" > > > > >>> laptop > > > > >>> > sticker. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher < > > > > jrocher at enthought.com > > > > >>> > >wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Katy, > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a > bajillion > > > at > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > end > > > > >>> > > :D. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to > raffle > > > and > > > > >>> almost > > > > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these > raffles. > > We > > > > >>> could > > > > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a > special > > > > >>> tee-shirt > > > > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > Jonathan > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff < > katyhuff at gmail.com> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the > abstracts > > > and > > > > >>> > papers. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He > > suggested > > > > we > > > > >>> > could > > > > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some > > > > incentive > > > > >>> to > > > > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he suggested > > we > > > > >>> could > > > > >>> > > offer > > > > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for > > > > >>> reviewers at > > > > >>> > > > various "levels." > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they > > would > > > > be > > > > >>> told > > > > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 > reviews, > > > > >>> "silver > > > > >>> > > level" > > > > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or > > something > > > > >>> like > > > > >>> > > that ) > > > > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 > > > reviews. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by > raffling > > > > >>> something > > > > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would be > > > > great. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a > > > better > > > > >>> one? > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this > > question > > > > is > > > > >>> > mostly > > > > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we > could > > > > >>> raffle? > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks! > > > > >>> > > > Katy > > > > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% > > > conference > > > > >>> growth > > > > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for > 200 > > > > >>> abstracts > > > > >>> > to > > > > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. > That's > > > > >>> > > approximately > > > > >>> > > > a bajillion. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > > > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > -- > > > > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > > > >>> > > Scientific software developer > > > > >>> > > Enthought, Inc. > > > > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com > > > > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 > > > > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com > > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD > > > Scientific software developer > > > Enthought, Inc. > > > jrocher at enthought.com > > > 1-512-536-1057 > > > http://www.enthought.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > -- > Kristen M. Thyng > Postdoctoral Research Associate > Department of Oceanography > Texas A&M University > http://kristenthyng.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From katyhuff at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 13:50:45 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:50:45 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kristen, Thanks for this thought! We haven't done that in the past. I also come from a field where known experts conduct all reviews for professional conferences, so I have a little bit of a bias. However, it's worth considering, and I will make an effort to relax my curmudgeonly ideas about how things are done and not done! I do think that it is, in theory, a good idea to require reviews of submitters. I am just hesitant about it in practice where qualifications are concerned. That is, plenty of people who submit abstracts to scipy may not be qualified to provide expert reviews. For example, we had a few high schoolers submit abstracts last year. I have *nothing* against high schoolers, and these were precocious individuals, probably vastly more expert than many individuals attending the conference. However, I usually expect reviews to come from more traditionally vetted "experts". I think it's a good suggestion, and worth considering, but I would suggest it may be most applicable for conferences where the experience of attendees is more uniform than the field of backgrounds we have at SciPy. All that said, I have a slightly different opinion about having full-paper-submitters be required do reviews (as Jacob, among others, has suggested). First of all, anyone who is submitting a full paper has already had their abstract accepted, so their work has passed the first bar of acceptability. Also, I think submitting a paper takes a level of expertise higher than the level required to submit an abstract. Does that make sense? Anyway, Serge and I will discuss this suggestion, but I think it's likely that at least for the abstracts, we may continue rely on known experts in the community. Thanks! Katy On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Kristen Thyng wrote: > >> Maybe this is underlying what you all are discussing, but just in case it >> isn't: is it assumed that if you submit an abstract/paper/talk, you will >> be >> a reviewer too? This is how it has worked for me at other conferences, and >> I think it is logical. > > > Point of information: This is not how it has worked at SciPy in the past > and > it isn't how things happen at the PyCons. > > I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other and luckily it isn't > in my sphere. > > Be Well > Anthony > > >> Then it is up to the conference to distribute things >> needing review to people at least somewhat by discipline, with the >> understanding that participation in the process is basically required if >> you want to have your stuff reviewed as well. I guess I don't know how >> this >> has worked out at the other conferences I've been at since I wasn't >> organizing, but I did my part! If that is a requirement, then there would >> be plenty of reviewers. >> >> Kristen >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Katy Huff wrote: >> >> > This is fantastic, everyone! >> > It sounds like it would be totally feasible, then, to have at least >> simple >> > little bronze/silver/gold star stickers on the physical badges, >> supported >> > virtually by mozilla open badges (thanks spidr!), and a potential >> > physical-stuff raffle for folks. >> > >> > Thanks! We'll iron the details of these thoughts our as all it gets >> closer. >> > For now, we'll just be prepared to tell potential reviewers that they >> will >> > be honored at various levels and may qualify for a raffle. >> > >> > Thanks!!! >> > Katy >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Rocher > > >wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a couple >> of >> > > image files we used last year in: >> > > >> https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images >> > > >> > > Hope this helps. >> > > Jonathan >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < >> > > > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > /spidrin >> > > > > >> > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). >> > > > > >> > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could >> use? >> > We >> > > > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That >> would >> > be >> > > > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a >> design >> > > to >> > > > > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular >> moderator >> > > lab >> > > > > coats last year? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website: >> > > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, >> > > it >> > > > was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a lot >> > > > here... >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I can setup the virtual badges. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Awesome! >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > /spidrout >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz < >> scopatz at gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> spidr, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. >> I am >> > > > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see >> > people >> > > > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various >> ways >> > > that >> > > > >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. >> Hopefully >> > in >> > > > the >> > > > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be >> > > > throughout >> > > > >> the year. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> /scopzout >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < >> > > > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >>> +1 >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> http://openbadges.org/ >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's >> > > contributions. >> > > > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn >> > > profile, >> > > > >>> etc. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Matt >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra < >> > > > james.bergstra at gmail.com >> > > > >>> >wrote: >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy >> 2013" >> > > > >>> laptop >> > > > >>> > sticker. >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher < >> > > > jrocher at enthought.com >> > > > >>> > >wrote: >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > > Katy, >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a >> bajillion >> > > at >> > > > >>> the >> > > > >>> > end >> > > > >>> > > :D. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to >> raffle >> > > and >> > > > >>> almost >> > > > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these >> raffles. >> > We >> > > > >>> could >> > > > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a >> special >> > > > >>> tee-shirt >> > > > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > Jonathan >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff < >> katyhuff at gmail.com> >> > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the >> abstracts >> > > and >> > > > >>> > papers. >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He >> > suggested >> > > > we >> > > > >>> > could >> > > > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some >> > > > incentive >> > > > >>> to >> > > > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he >> suggested >> > we >> > > > >>> could >> > > > >>> > > offer >> > > > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for >> > > > >>> reviewers at >> > > > >>> > > > various "levels." >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they >> > would >> > > > be >> > > > >>> told >> > > > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 >> reviews, >> > > > >>> "silver >> > > > >>> > > level" >> > > > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or >> > something >> > > > >>> like >> > > > >>> > > that ) >> > > > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 >> > > reviews. >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by >> raffling >> > > > >>> something >> > > > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would >> be >> > > > great. >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a >> > > better >> > > > >>> one? >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this >> > question >> > > > is >> > > > >>> > mostly >> > > > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we >> could >> > > > >>> raffle? >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > Thanks! >> > > > >>> > > > Katy >> > > > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% >> > > conference >> > > > >>> growth >> > > > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for >> 200 >> > > > >>> abstracts >> > > > >>> > to >> > > > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. >> That's >> > > > >>> > > approximately >> > > > >>> > > > a bajillion. >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > -- >> > > > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com >> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > -- >> > > > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD >> > > > >>> > > Scientific software developer >> > > > >>> > > Enthought, Inc. >> > > > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com >> > > > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 >> > > > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com >> > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >> > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD >> > > Scientific software developer >> > > Enthought, Inc. >> > > jrocher at enthought.com >> > > 1-512-536-1057 >> > > http://www.enthought.com >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://katyhuff.github.com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Kristen M. Thyng >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> Department of Oceanography >> Texas A&M University >> http://kristenthyng.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From kthyng at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 13:57:01 2013 From: kthyng at gmail.com (Kristen Thyng) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:57:01 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Katy, Yep, that makes sense. The conferences in which that has occurred for me in the past have been part of a more uniform level community than what you're saying about SciPy submitters. Kristen On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > Hi Kristen, > > Thanks for this thought! We haven't done that in the past. I also come > from a field where known experts conduct all reviews for professional > conferences, so I have a little bit of a bias. However, it's worth > considering, and I will make an effort to relax my curmudgeonly ideas about > how things are done and not done! > > I do think that it is, in theory, a good idea to require reviews of > submitters. I am just hesitant about it in practice where qualifications > are concerned. That is, plenty of people who submit abstracts to scipy may > not be qualified to provide expert reviews. For example, we had a few high > schoolers submit abstracts last year. I have *nothing* against high > schoolers, and these were precocious individuals, probably vastly more > expert than many individuals attending the conference. However, I usually > expect reviews to come from more traditionally vetted "experts". > > I think it's a good suggestion, and worth considering, but I would suggest > it may be most applicable for conferences where the experience of attendees > is more uniform than the field of backgrounds we have at SciPy. > > All that said, I have a slightly different opinion about having > full-paper-submitters be required do reviews (as Jacob, among others, has > suggested). First of all, anyone who is submitting a full paper has already > had their abstract accepted, so their work has passed the first bar of > acceptability. Also, I think submitting a paper takes a level of expertise > higher than the level required to submit an abstract. Does that make sense? > > Anyway, Serge and I will discuss this suggestion, but I think it's likely > that at least for the abstracts, we may continue rely on known experts in > the community. > > Thanks! > Katy > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Kristen Thyng wrote: >> >>> Maybe this is underlying what you all are discussing, but just in case it >>> isn't: is it assumed that if you submit an abstract/paper/talk, you will >>> be >>> a reviewer too? This is how it has worked for me at other conferences, >>> and >>> I think it is logical. >> >> >> Point of information: This is not how it has worked at SciPy in the past >> and >> it isn't how things happen at the PyCons. >> >> I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other and luckily it >> isn't in my sphere. >> >> Be Well >> Anthony >> >> >>> Then it is up to the conference to distribute things >>> needing review to people at least somewhat by discipline, with the >>> understanding that participation in the process is basically required if >>> you want to have your stuff reviewed as well. I guess I don't know how >>> this >>> has worked out at the other conferences I've been at since I wasn't >>> organizing, but I did my part! If that is a requirement, then there would >>> be plenty of reviewers. >>> >>> Kristen >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Katy Huff wrote: >>> >>> > This is fantastic, everyone! >>> > It sounds like it would be totally feasible, then, to have at least >>> simple >>> > little bronze/silver/gold star stickers on the physical badges, >>> supported >>> > virtually by mozilla open badges (thanks spidr!), and a potential >>> > physical-stuff raffle for folks. >>> > >>> > Thanks! We'll iron the details of these thoughts our as all it gets >>> closer. >>> > For now, we'll just be prepared to tell potential reviewers that they >>> will >>> > be honored at various levels and may qualify for a raffle. >>> > >>> > Thanks!!! >>> > Katy >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Rocher >> > >wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi all, >>> > > >>> > > I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a >>> couple of >>> > > image files we used last year in: >>> > > >>> https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images >>> > > >>> > > Hope this helps. >>> > > Jonathan >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < >>> > > > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > /spidrin >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-). >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could >>> use? >>> > We >>> > > > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design. That >>> would >>> > be >>> > > > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a >>> design >>> > > to >>> > > > > create a per-role design. What was used on the spectacular >>> moderator >>> > > lab >>> > > > > coats last year? >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website: >>> > > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However, >>> > > it >>> > > > was cropped and reshaded at the printer. This doesn't help us a >>> lot >>> > > > here... >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > I can setup the virtual badges. >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Awesome! >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > /spidrout >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz < >>> scopatz at gmail.com> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> spidr, >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones. >>> I am >>> > > > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see >>> > people >>> > > > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various >>> ways >>> > > that >>> > > > >> they participated. It would be a conversation starter. >>> Hopefully >>> > in >>> > > > the >>> > > > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be >>> > > > throughout >>> > > > >> the year. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> /scopzout >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) < >>> > > > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote: >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >>> +1 >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge, >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> http://openbadges.org/ >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's >>> > > contributions. >>> > > > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn >>> > > profile, >>> > > > >>> etc. >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> Matt >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra < >>> > > > james.bergstra at gmail.com >>> > > > >>> >wrote: >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy >>> 2013" >>> > > > >>> laptop >>> > > > >>> > sticker. >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher < >>> > > > jrocher at enthought.com >>> > > > >>> > >wrote: >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > Katy, >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a >>> bajillion >>> > > at >>> > > > >>> the >>> > > > >>> > end >>> > > > >>> > > :D. >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to >>> raffle >>> > > and >>> > > > >>> almost >>> > > > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these >>> raffles. >>> > We >>> > > > >>> could >>> > > > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a >>> special >>> > > > >>> tee-shirt >>> > > > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your >>> ideas. >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > Jonathan >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff < >>> katyhuff at gmail.com> >>> > > > >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the >>> abstracts >>> > > and >>> > > > >>> > papers. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He >>> > suggested >>> > > > we >>> > > > >>> > could >>> > > > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some >>> > > > incentive >>> > > > >>> to >>> > > > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he >>> suggested >>> > we >>> > > > >>> could >>> > > > >>> > > offer >>> > > > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program >>> for >>> > > > >>> reviewers at >>> > > > >>> > > > various "levels." >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they >>> > would >>> > > > be >>> > > > >>> told >>> > > > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10 >>> reviews, >>> > > > >>> "silver >>> > > > >>> > > level" >>> > > > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or >>> > something >>> > > > >>> like >>> > > > >>> > > that ) >>> > > > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10 >>> > > reviews. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by >>> raffling >>> > > > >>> something >>> > > > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would >>> be >>> > > > great. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a >>> > > better >>> > > > >>> one? >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this >>> > question >>> > > > is >>> > > > >>> > mostly >>> > > > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we >>> could >>> > > > >>> raffle? >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks! >>> > > > >>> > > > Katy >>> > > > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair) >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70% >>> > > conference >>> > > > >>> growth >>> > > > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for >>> 200 >>> > > > >>> abstracts >>> > > > >>> > to >>> > > > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers. >>> That's >>> > > > >>> > > approximately >>> > > > >>> > > > a bajillion. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- >>> > > > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD >>> > > > >>> > > Scientific software developer >>> > > > >>> > > Enthought, Inc. >>> > > > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com >>> > > > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 >>> > > > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com >>> > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD >>> > > Scientific software developer >>> > > Enthought, Inc. >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com >>> > > 1-512-536-1057 >>> > > http://www.enthought.com >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > http://katyhuff.github.com >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristen M. Thyng >>> Postdoctoral Research Associate >>> Department of Oceanography >>> Texas A&M University >>> http://kristenthyng.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> >> > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > -- Kristen M. Thyng Postdoctoral Research Associate Department of Oceanography Texas A&M University http://kristenthyng.com From kthyng at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 14:05:22 2013 From: kthyng at gmail.com (Kristen Thyng) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:05:22 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would vote to keep atmospherics and oceanography together again since they overlap so much. This wouldn't have to be a mini-symposium necessarily, but in case others have heard anything about it, I have been talking with my brother about python used by Disney animators. Apparently there is some presence there and I'm trying to find out how big it is, and how scientific it is. On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Brett Murphy > wrote: > > > If I had to choose between Geophysics and trying Boeing's suggestion, I > > would prioritize the Boeing one. My 2 cents. > > > > Noted. > :) > > > > > > -- Brett > > > > > > Brett Murphy > > Enthought, Inc. > > bmurphy at enthought.com > > 512-536-1057 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Katy Huff wrote: > > > >> Thanks so much for all of this input, everyone! > >> > >> @mattturk : I also think HEP might have some significant participation. > I > >> would be curious about the depth of the networks you're aware of. If we > >> end > >> up doing an HEP , I may call on you to help us flesh out the field of > >> contributors. > >> > >> @brettmurphy : I think you're right. Especially in the context of a GIS > >> main theme, attendees are likely to have simultaneous domain interest in > >> geophysics. > >> > >> @Jonathan : Thanks for this data! This is perfect. I had either > forgotten > >> or completely missed that we collected this. This will be very helpful > in > >> guiding our choices. I really appreciate it. > >> > >> @kylemandli & @andyterrell : Excellent thoughts! I think you're > absolutely > >> right that an industrial track would be great. If we do this, I will > >> definitely call on you to help us flesh out the field of contributors > via > >> any contacts you have in the domain. > >> > >> Another suggestion, by Serge, was a "digital humanities" mini symposium. > >> Strangely enough, by virtue of being at Berkeley where the D-Lab is > >> located, I do know a number of people in various humanities who are > using > >> a > >> scipy type stack. What do people think about this? > >> > >> Excellent work, folks! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I > really > >> appreciate all of your input. I think we'll have an excellent program > this > >> year. > >> > >> !! > >> Katy > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Andy Ray Terrel >> >wrote: > >> > >> > I think the Industrial use of Python is a much needed complement to > >> > the conference. > >> > > >> > I would actually propose a system where folks can put forward their > >> > own domain mini-symposium ideas. Since we will have an extra day, we > >> > need to figure out how we are going to expand in this realm vs more > >> > talks vs more bofs. > >> > > >> > -- Andy > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Kyle Mandli > >> > wrote: > >> > > Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on > >> > > engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also > >> > > volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from > >> > > industry. Here's the text of the email: > >> > > > >> > > "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on > Engineering/Manufacturing > >> > > or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I > >> > > (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and > >> > > present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to > >> > > attract other python developers from industry to participate." > >> > > > >> > > Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it > to > >> > > be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a > >> > > larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the > >> > > list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I > think > >> > > their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much > >> > > broader context. > >> > > > >> > > Kyle > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff > wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> > >> > >> Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the > >> > SciPy > >> > >> program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains > >> those > >> > >> mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. > >> > >> > >> > >> Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? > Mini-symposia > >> > are > >> > >> great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could > >> > highlight in > >> > >> order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great > for > >> > >> domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may > >> > need to > >> > >> be giving their own special place within the conference (think > >> Astro). > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone > >> can > >> > >> please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely > >> > >> interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to > >> > suggest! > >> > >> > >> > >> For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - 2013 : > >> > >> - Bionformatics > >> > >> - Astro > >> > >> - GIS > >> > >> - Meteorology/Oceanography > >> > >> - Medical Imaging > >> > >> - 2012 > >> > >> - Astro > >> > >> - Geophysics > >> > >> - Bioinformatics > >> > >> - Meteorology > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> http://katyhuff.github.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://katyhuff.github.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > > > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Kristen M. Thyng Postdoctoral Research Associate Department of Oceanography Texas A&M University http://kristenthyng.com From matthewturk at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 14:07:54 2013 From: matthewturk at gmail.com (Matthew Turk) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:07:54 -0500 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Mini-Symposium Topic Suggestions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Katy Huff wrote: > Thanks so much for all of this input, everyone! > > @mattturk : I also think HEP might have some significant participation. I > would be curious about the depth of the networks you're aware of. If we end > up doing an HEP , I may call on you to help us flesh out the field of > contributors. I'd be happy to do whatever I can. > > @brettmurphy : I think you're right. Especially in the context of a GIS > main theme, attendees are likely to have simultaneous domain interest in > geophysics. > > @Jonathan : Thanks for this data! This is perfect. I had either forgotten > or completely missed that we collected this. This will be very helpful in > guiding our choices. I really appreciate it. > > @kylemandli & @andyterrell : Excellent thoughts! I think you're absolutely > right that an industrial track would be great. If we do this, I will > definitely call on you to help us flesh out the field of contributors via > any contacts you have in the domain. > > Another suggestion, by Serge, was a "digital humanities" mini symposium. > Strangely enough, by virtue of being at Berkeley where the D-Lab is > located, I do know a number of people in various humanities who are using a > scipy type stack. What do people think about this? I'm strongly +1 on this. > > Excellent work, folks! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I really > appreciate all of your input. I think we'll have an excellent program this > year. > > !! > Katy > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >> I think the Industrial use of Python is a much needed complement to >> the conference. >> >> I would actually propose a system where folks can put forward their >> own domain mini-symposium ideas. Since we will have an extra day, we >> need to figure out how we are going to expand in this realm vs more >> talks vs more bofs. >> >> -- Andy >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Kyle Mandli >> wrote: >> > Contacts of mine from Boeing proposed a mini-symposia on >> > engineering/manufacturing or industrial use of Python. They also >> > volunteered to coordinate the mini-symposia inviting in other from >> > industry. Here's the text of the email: >> > >> > "We would like to propose a mini-symposia on Engineering/Manufacturing >> > or Industrial use of Python for SciPy2014. Matt, Trevor, and I >> > (Nicholas) would be willing to help coordinate this effort, and >> > present some of our ideas/work/etc. The goal for us would be to >> > attract other python developers from industry to participate." >> > >> > Matt and Nicholas both participated in SciPy last year and found it to >> > be a rewarding experience and would like to be able to provide a >> > larger footprint for people in their line of work. Looking at the >> > list that Jonathan posted, this would fit under aerospace but I think >> > their intention was to address in the manufacturing idea in much >> > broader context. >> > >> > Kyle >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Katy Huff wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Every year we have a handful of domain-focused mini-symposia in the >> SciPy >> >> program. The time has come for Serge and I to decide what domains those >> >> mini-symposia should focus on and we'd love your input. >> >> >> >> Does anyone have any suggestions for our consideration? Mini-symposia >> are >> >> great for domains with growing SciPy communities that we could >> highlight in >> >> order to encourage their engagement. Mini-symposia are also great for >> >> domains that have such a large SciPy presence already that they may >> need to >> >> be giving their own special place within the conference (think Astro). >> >> >> >> I'm not emailing to start a cross domain battle, so I hope everyone can >> >> please respect the suggestions of your colleagues! We are genuinely >> >> interested in unique ideas and will consider anything you have to >> suggest! >> >> >> >> For your perusal, recent mini-symposia have included : >> >> >> >> >> >> - 2013 : >> >> - Bionformatics >> >> - Astro >> >> - GIS >> >> - Meteorology/Oceanography >> >> - Medical Imaging >> >> - 2012 >> >> - Astro >> >> - Geophysics >> >> - Bioinformatics >> >> - Meteorology >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://katyhuff.github.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From stefan at sun.ac.za Mon Nov 18 11:06:20 2013 From: stefan at sun.ac.za (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9fan_van_der_Walt?=) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:06:20 +0200 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Repositories moved Message-ID: Hey, everyone Just a heads-up that I moved all proceedings and talks repositories to the scipy-conference organization. GitHub should have links up from the old locations. Are there any locations in which I should update these URLs, other than in the proceedings guidelines? Thanks St?fan From scopatz at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 14:06:17 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:06:17 +0000 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Repositories moved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Stefan! On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:06 PM, St?fan van der Walt wrote: > Hey, everyone > > Just a heads-up that I moved all proceedings and talks repositories to > the scipy-conference organization. GitHub should have links up from > the old locations. > > Are there any locations in which I should update these URLs, other > than in the proceedings guidelines? > > Thanks > St?fan > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From andy.terrel at gmail.com Wed Nov 20 09:56:56 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:56:56 -0700 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Repositories moved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for doing this. I don't know of any other places to update URLs. -- Andy On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:06 AM, St?fan van der Walt wrote: > Hey, everyone > > Just a heads-up that I moved all proceedings and talks repositories to > the scipy-conference organization. GitHub should have links up from > the old locations. > > Are there any locations in which I should update these URLs, other > than in the proceedings guidelines? > > Thanks > St?fan > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From sheila at codersquid.com Thu Nov 21 20:39:41 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:39:41 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information Message-ID: Hi all, Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, . We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation requests, questions or suggestions. If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address like this? -- sheila at codersquid.com From andy.terrel at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:17:10 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:17:10 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey Sheila, This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this list and deal with things on a case by case basis. -- Andy On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez wrote: > Hi all, > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, > . > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation > requests, questions or suggestions. > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address like this? > > -- > sheila at codersquid.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From sheila at codersquid.com Fri Nov 22 12:28:09 2013 From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:28:09 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'd be in danger of over-comitting if I sign up to do it, and doing a bad job at helping people who need information on accessibility might be worse than not having a contact page that people could go to for information. I only know a limited amount of information due to asking about small things we do in Chicago. One of my chipy friends put me in touch with his family member when I had questions re chipy locations and small project nights because for classes or project nights we have limited availability of accessible spaces and I wanted to understand how to epxlain to people up front what type of amenitites we have. She said it was okay to quote her, jen.lav at gmail.com re soliciting requests--we always just have a name, contact info, (email > should be enough, considering the audience) and a time frame. For example, > hard to get an ASL interpreter w/less than a week's notice, other > accommodations take even more time.. so you want to have a cut off date. > We just say, "requests for reasonable accommodations should be made to X > by Y date" > > re space--my basic thought it that it needs to be physically accessible > (including bathrooms!) and most things beyond that the onus is on the > participant w/the disability to request, because you can't foresee every > kind of accommodation. > > But easy things to do ahead of time: > -, ask people not to wear perfume, scented products, etc. > -keep in mind needs re Autistic Community--here is a good resource -- > http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/ASAN.pdf > --are you using AV system for presentations? there are separate > accessibility stuff that I am not so familiar with for bigger > presentations, like live captioning, making sure handouts are in accessible > formats, etc. But not knowing what you're doing, hard to say. > --if seating is available/provided, have space for wheelchair users. > My chipy friend's contribution to the conversation I also found the IEEE's guidelines with a link to a more extensive > PDF, which might also be helpful: > > http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/holding_accessible_conference.html > And her followup Sure--feel free to share, with the caveat that I'm not really a > "professional." I do mental health law--haven't dealt with physical > accessibility much. But Aaron, I like the IEEE guidelines--good reminder > of some things I forgot. > > I think the most important thing is a clear contact person ahead of time, > so requests can be made. > also here is a handy publication from DOJ. > http://www.ada.gov/business/accessiblemtg.htm > Hopefully this isn't too obsessive of me. I was at a conference once where they didn't help people and some folks even got mistreated. I didn't know how to handle it at the time, so I looked for information in order to be prepared in case I see anything like that happen again. On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > Hey Sheila, > > This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to > take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make > it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this > list and deal with things on a case by case basis. > > -- Andy > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for > > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, > > . > > > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate > > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation > > requests, questions or suggestions. > > > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address > like this? > > > > -- > > sheila at codersquid.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- sheila at codersquid.com From katyhuff at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:32:54 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:32:54 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that this is a good idea. I think this sort of thing is why we have a communications chair. Anthony, is there an email address that isn't totally public (as this scipy-organizers list is), that would be better for these more sensitive concerns than this public list is? It seems to me we should route all questions (not just about accessibility, but also other attendee concerns), to our chairs, communications chair, and proxies via such an email address. Last year those people just made their personal email addresses public, I think. Anthony, as communications, what do you think? On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM, sheila miguez wrote: > I'd be in danger of over-comitting if I sign up to do it, and doing a bad > job at helping people who need information on accessibility might be worse > than not having a contact page that people could go to for information. > > I only know a limited amount of information due to asking about small > things we do in Chicago. One of my chipy friends put me in touch with his > family member when I had questions re chipy locations and small project > nights because for classes or project nights we have limited availability > of accessible spaces and I wanted to understand how to epxlain to people up > front what type of amenitites we have. > > She said it was okay to quote her, jen.lav at gmail.com > > re soliciting requests--we always just have a name, contact info, (email > > should be enough, considering the audience) and a time frame. For > example, > > hard to get an ASL interpreter w/less than a week's notice, other > > accommodations take even more time.. so you want to have a cut off date. > > We just say, "requests for reasonable accommodations should be made to X > > by Y date" > > > > re space--my basic thought it that it needs to be physically accessible > > (including bathrooms!) and most things beyond that the onus is on the > > participant w/the disability to request, because you can't foresee every > > kind of accommodation. > > > > But easy things to do ahead of time: > > -, ask people not to wear perfume, scented products, etc. > > -keep in mind needs re Autistic Community--here is a good resource -- > > http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/ASAN.pdf > > --are you using AV system for presentations? there are separate > > accessibility stuff that I am not so familiar with for bigger > > presentations, like live captioning, making sure handouts are in > accessible > > formats, etc. But not knowing what you're doing, hard to say. > > --if seating is available/provided, have space for wheelchair users. > > > > My chipy friend's contribution to the conversation > > I also found the IEEE's guidelines with a link to a more extensive > > PDF, which might also be helpful: > > > > > http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/holding_accessible_conference.html > > > > And her followup > > Sure--feel free to share, with the caveat that I'm not really a > > "professional." I do mental health law--haven't dealt with physical > > accessibility much. But Aaron, I like the IEEE guidelines--good reminder > > of some things I forgot. > > > > I think the most important thing is a clear contact person ahead of time, > > so requests can be made. > > also here is a handy publication from DOJ. > > http://www.ada.gov/business/accessiblemtg.htm > > > > Hopefully this isn't too obsessive of me. I was at a conference once where > they didn't help people and some folks even got mistreated. I didn't know > how to handle it at the time, so I looked for information in order to be > prepared in case I see anything like that happen again. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel >wrote: > > > Hey Sheila, > > > > This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to > > take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make > > it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this > > list and deal with things on a case by case basis. > > > > -- Andy > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for > > > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, > > > . > > > > > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate > > > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation > > > requests, questions or suggestions. > > > > > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address > > like this? > > > > > > -- > > > sheila at codersquid.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > > -- > sheila at codersquid.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From andy.terrel at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:40:53 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:40:53 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Katy Huff wrote: > I agree that this is a good idea. I think this sort of thing is why we have > a communications chair. Anthony, is there an email address that isn't > totally public (as this scipy-organizers list is), that would be better for > these more sensitive concerns than this public list is? > scipy-exec is not as public, and always there is emailing me or anthony directly. > It seems to me we should route all questions (not just about accessibility, > but also other attendee concerns), to our chairs, communications chair, and > proxies via such an email address. Last year those people just made their > personal email addresses public, I think. Anthony, as communications, what > do you think? Unless we start having a large volume of these emails, I think making private emails is better. Having too many lists ends up where people are confused and the lists stop getting watched. -- Andy > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM, sheila miguez > wrote: >> >> I'd be in danger of over-comitting if I sign up to do it, and doing a bad >> job at helping people who need information on accessibility might be worse >> than not having a contact page that people could go to for information. >> >> I only know a limited amount of information due to asking about small >> things we do in Chicago. One of my chipy friends put me in touch with his >> family member when I had questions re chipy locations and small project >> nights because for classes or project nights we have limited availability >> of accessible spaces and I wanted to understand how to epxlain to people >> up >> front what type of amenitites we have. >> >> She said it was okay to quote her, jen.lav at gmail.com >> >> re soliciting requests--we always just have a name, contact info, (email >> > should be enough, considering the audience) and a time frame. For >> > example, >> > hard to get an ASL interpreter w/less than a week's notice, other >> > accommodations take even more time.. so you want to have a cut off >> > date. >> > We just say, "requests for reasonable accommodations should be made to >> > X >> > by Y date" >> > >> > re space--my basic thought it that it needs to be physically accessible >> > (including bathrooms!) and most things beyond that the onus is on the >> > participant w/the disability to request, because you can't foresee every >> > kind of accommodation. >> > >> > But easy things to do ahead of time: >> > -, ask people not to wear perfume, scented products, etc. >> > -keep in mind needs re Autistic Community--here is a good resource -- >> > http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/ASAN.pdf >> > --are you using AV system for presentations? there are separate >> > accessibility stuff that I am not so familiar with for bigger >> > presentations, like live captioning, making sure handouts are in >> > accessible >> > formats, etc. But not knowing what you're doing, hard to say. >> > --if seating is available/provided, have space for wheelchair users. >> > >> >> My chipy friend's contribution to the conversation >> >> I also found the IEEE's guidelines with a link to a more extensive >> > PDF, which might also be helpful: >> > >> > >> > http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/holding_accessible_conference.html >> > >> >> And her followup >> >> Sure--feel free to share, with the caveat that I'm not really a >> > "professional." I do mental health law--haven't dealt with physical >> > accessibility much. But Aaron, I like the IEEE guidelines--good >> > reminder >> > of some things I forgot. >> > >> > I think the most important thing is a clear contact person ahead of >> > time, >> > so requests can be made. >> > also here is a handy publication from DOJ. >> > http://www.ada.gov/business/accessiblemtg.htm >> > >> >> Hopefully this isn't too obsessive of me. I was at a conference once where >> they didn't help people and some folks even got mistreated. I didn't know >> how to handle it at the time, so I looked for information in order to be >> prepared in case I see anything like that happen again. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel >> wrote: >> >> > Hey Sheila, >> > >> > This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to >> > take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make >> > it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this >> > list and deal with things on a case by case basis. >> > >> > -- Andy >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez >> > wrote: >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for >> > > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, >> > > . >> > > >> > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate >> > > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation >> > > requests, questions or suggestions. >> > > >> > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address >> > like this? >> > > >> > > -- >> > > sheila at codersquid.com >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> sheila at codersquid.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com From kyle.mandli at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:42:08 2013 From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:42:08 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I may be misinformed to exactly what this type of information might entail but I would imagine that the conference venue would have a lot of this type of information already available or at least suggestions for hearing or vision impaired and talks. This might head off a lot of questions about accessibility at the conference and reduce the overhead of having an email address. Kyle On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Katy Huff wrote: > I agree that this is a good idea. I think this sort of thing is why we have > a communications chair. Anthony, is there an email address that isn't > totally public (as this scipy-organizers list is), that would be better for > these more sensitive concerns than this public list is? > > It seems to me we should route all questions (not just about accessibility, > but also other attendee concerns), to our chairs, communications chair, and > proxies via such an email address. Last year those people just made their > personal email addresses public, I think. Anthony, as communications, what > do you think? > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM, sheila miguez wrote: > >> I'd be in danger of over-comitting if I sign up to do it, and doing a bad >> job at helping people who need information on accessibility might be worse >> than not having a contact page that people could go to for information. >> >> I only know a limited amount of information due to asking about small >> things we do in Chicago. One of my chipy friends put me in touch with his >> family member when I had questions re chipy locations and small project >> nights because for classes or project nights we have limited availability >> of accessible spaces and I wanted to understand how to epxlain to people up >> front what type of amenitites we have. >> >> She said it was okay to quote her, jen.lav at gmail.com >> >> re soliciting requests--we always just have a name, contact info, (email >> > should be enough, considering the audience) and a time frame. For >> example, >> > hard to get an ASL interpreter w/less than a week's notice, other >> > accommodations take even more time.. so you want to have a cut off date. >> > We just say, "requests for reasonable accommodations should be made to X >> > by Y date" >> > >> > re space--my basic thought it that it needs to be physically accessible >> > (including bathrooms!) and most things beyond that the onus is on the >> > participant w/the disability to request, because you can't foresee every >> > kind of accommodation. >> > >> > But easy things to do ahead of time: >> > -, ask people not to wear perfume, scented products, etc. >> > -keep in mind needs re Autistic Community--here is a good resource -- >> > http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/ASAN.pdf >> > --are you using AV system for presentations? there are separate >> > accessibility stuff that I am not so familiar with for bigger >> > presentations, like live captioning, making sure handouts are in >> accessible >> > formats, etc. But not knowing what you're doing, hard to say. >> > --if seating is available/provided, have space for wheelchair users. >> > >> >> My chipy friend's contribution to the conversation >> >> I also found the IEEE's guidelines with a link to a more extensive >> > PDF, which might also be helpful: >> > >> > >> http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/holding_accessible_conference.html >> > >> >> And her followup >> >> Sure--feel free to share, with the caveat that I'm not really a >> > "professional." I do mental health law--haven't dealt with physical >> > accessibility much. But Aaron, I like the IEEE guidelines--good reminder >> > of some things I forgot. >> > >> > I think the most important thing is a clear contact person ahead of time, >> > so requests can be made. >> > also here is a handy publication from DOJ. >> > http://www.ada.gov/business/accessiblemtg.htm >> > >> >> Hopefully this isn't too obsessive of me. I was at a conference once where >> they didn't help people and some folks even got mistreated. I didn't know >> how to handle it at the time, so I looked for information in order to be >> prepared in case I see anything like that happen again. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel > >wrote: >> >> > Hey Sheila, >> > >> > This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to >> > take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make >> > it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this >> > list and deal with things on a case by case basis. >> > >> > -- Andy >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez >> > wrote: >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for >> > > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, >> > > . >> > > >> > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate >> > > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation >> > > requests, questions or suggestions. >> > > >> > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address >> > like this? >> > > >> > > -- >> > > sheila at codersquid.com >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> sheila at codersquid.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >> > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From katyhuff at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:45:25 2013 From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:45:25 -0800 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, Andy, you said "this list" so I thought you were referring to this list, which is to say, scipy-organizers. I agree that scipy-exec is a good place for it. On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote: > I may be misinformed to exactly what this type of information might > entail but I would imagine that the conference venue would have a lot > of this type of information already available or at least suggestions > for hearing or vision impaired and talks. This might head off a lot > of questions about accessibility at the conference and reduce the > overhead of having an email address. > > Kyle > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Katy Huff wrote: > > I agree that this is a good idea. I think this sort of thing is why we > have > > a communications chair. Anthony, is there an email address that isn't > > totally public (as this scipy-organizers list is), that would be better > for > > these more sensitive concerns than this public list is? > > > > It seems to me we should route all questions (not just about > accessibility, > > but also other attendee concerns), to our chairs, communications chair, > and > > proxies via such an email address. Last year those people just made their > > personal email addresses public, I think. Anthony, as communications, > what > > do you think? > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM, sheila miguez >wrote: > > > >> I'd be in danger of over-comitting if I sign up to do it, and doing a > bad > >> job at helping people who need information on accessibility might be > worse > >> than not having a contact page that people could go to for information. > >> > >> I only know a limited amount of information due to asking about small > >> things we do in Chicago. One of my chipy friends put me in touch with > his > >> family member when I had questions re chipy locations and small project > >> nights because for classes or project nights we have limited > availability > >> of accessible spaces and I wanted to understand how to epxlain to > people up > >> front what type of amenitites we have. > >> > >> She said it was okay to quote her, jen.lav at gmail.com > >> > >> re soliciting requests--we always just have a name, contact info, (email > >> > should be enough, considering the audience) and a time frame. For > >> example, > >> > hard to get an ASL interpreter w/less than a week's notice, other > >> > accommodations take even more time.. so you want to have a cut off > date. > >> > We just say, "requests for reasonable accommodations should be made > to X > >> > by Y date" > >> > > >> > re space--my basic thought it that it needs to be physically > accessible > >> > (including bathrooms!) and most things beyond that the onus is on the > >> > participant w/the disability to request, because you can't foresee > every > >> > kind of accommodation. > >> > > >> > But easy things to do ahead of time: > >> > -, ask people not to wear perfume, scented products, etc. > >> > -keep in mind needs re Autistic Community--here is a good resource -- > >> > http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/ASAN.pdf > >> > --are you using AV system for presentations? there are separate > >> > accessibility stuff that I am not so familiar with for bigger > >> > presentations, like live captioning, making sure handouts are in > >> accessible > >> > formats, etc. But not knowing what you're doing, hard to say. > >> > --if seating is available/provided, have space for wheelchair users. > >> > > >> > >> My chipy friend's contribution to the conversation > >> > >> I also found the IEEE's guidelines with a link to a more extensive > >> > PDF, which might also be helpful: > >> > > >> > > >> > http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/holding_accessible_conference.html > >> > > >> > >> And her followup > >> > >> Sure--feel free to share, with the caveat that I'm not really a > >> > "professional." I do mental health law--haven't dealt with physical > >> > accessibility much. But Aaron, I like the IEEE guidelines--good > reminder > >> > of some things I forgot. > >> > > >> > I think the most important thing is a clear contact person ahead of > time, > >> > so requests can be made. > >> > also here is a handy publication from DOJ. > >> > http://www.ada.gov/business/accessiblemtg.htm > >> > > >> > >> Hopefully this isn't too obsessive of me. I was at a conference once > where > >> they didn't help people and some folks even got mistreated. I didn't > know > >> how to handle it at the time, so I looked for information in order to be > >> prepared in case I see anything like that happen again. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel < > andy.terrel at gmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Hey Sheila, > >> > > >> > This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to > >> > take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make > >> > it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this > >> > list and deal with things on a case by case basis. > >> > > >> > -- Andy > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez > > >> > wrote: > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for > >> > > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, > >> > > . > >> > > > >> > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate > >> > > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for > accommodation > >> > > requests, questions or suggestions. > >> > > > >> > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address > >> > like this? > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > sheila at codersquid.com > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> sheila at codersquid.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://katyhuff.github.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- http://katyhuff.github.com From andy.terrel at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:51:26 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:51:26 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] accessibility contact information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Okay I'll ask the logistics staff to help out with getting information on accessibility. -- Andy On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Kyle Mandli wrote: > I may be misinformed to exactly what this type of information might > entail but I would imagine that the conference venue would have a lot > of this type of information already available or at least suggestions > for hearing or vision impaired and talks. This might head off a lot > of questions about accessibility at the conference and reduce the > overhead of having an email address. > > Kyle > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Katy Huff wrote: >> I agree that this is a good idea. I think this sort of thing is why we have >> a communications chair. Anthony, is there an email address that isn't >> totally public (as this scipy-organizers list is), that would be better for >> these more sensitive concerns than this public list is? >> >> It seems to me we should route all questions (not just about accessibility, >> but also other attendee concerns), to our chairs, communications chair, and >> proxies via such an email address. Last year those people just made their >> personal email addresses public, I think. Anthony, as communications, what >> do you think? >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM, sheila miguez wrote: >> >>> I'd be in danger of over-comitting if I sign up to do it, and doing a bad >>> job at helping people who need information on accessibility might be worse >>> than not having a contact page that people could go to for information. >>> >>> I only know a limited amount of information due to asking about small >>> things we do in Chicago. One of my chipy friends put me in touch with his >>> family member when I had questions re chipy locations and small project >>> nights because for classes or project nights we have limited availability >>> of accessible spaces and I wanted to understand how to epxlain to people up >>> front what type of amenitites we have. >>> >>> She said it was okay to quote her, jen.lav at gmail.com >>> >>> re soliciting requests--we always just have a name, contact info, (email >>> > should be enough, considering the audience) and a time frame. For >>> example, >>> > hard to get an ASL interpreter w/less than a week's notice, other >>> > accommodations take even more time.. so you want to have a cut off date. >>> > We just say, "requests for reasonable accommodations should be made to X >>> > by Y date" >>> > >>> > re space--my basic thought it that it needs to be physically accessible >>> > (including bathrooms!) and most things beyond that the onus is on the >>> > participant w/the disability to request, because you can't foresee every >>> > kind of accommodation. >>> > >>> > But easy things to do ahead of time: >>> > -, ask people not to wear perfume, scented products, etc. >>> > -keep in mind needs re Autistic Community--here is a good resource -- >>> > http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/ASAN.pdf >>> > --are you using AV system for presentations? there are separate >>> > accessibility stuff that I am not so familiar with for bigger >>> > presentations, like live captioning, making sure handouts are in >>> accessible >>> > formats, etc. But not knowing what you're doing, hard to say. >>> > --if seating is available/provided, have space for wheelchair users. >>> > >>> >>> My chipy friend's contribution to the conversation >>> >>> I also found the IEEE's guidelines with a link to a more extensive >>> > PDF, which might also be helpful: >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/holding_accessible_conference.html >>> > >>> >>> And her followup >>> >>> Sure--feel free to share, with the caveat that I'm not really a >>> > "professional." I do mental health law--haven't dealt with physical >>> > accessibility much. But Aaron, I like the IEEE guidelines--good reminder >>> > of some things I forgot. >>> > >>> > I think the most important thing is a clear contact person ahead of time, >>> > so requests can be made. >>> > also here is a handy publication from DOJ. >>> > http://www.ada.gov/business/accessiblemtg.htm >>> > >>> >>> Hopefully this isn't too obsessive of me. I was at a conference once where >>> they didn't help people and some folks even got mistreated. I didn't know >>> how to handle it at the time, so I looked for information in order to be >>> prepared in case I see anything like that happen again. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Ray Terrel >> >wrote: >>> >>> > Hey Sheila, >>> > >>> > This looks like a good thing to have, but I unless someone wants to >>> > take on the role of finding all the information, I'm hesitant to make >>> > it a priority at this time. For now we can just have folks email this >>> > list and deal with things on a case by case basis. >>> > >>> > -- Andy >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM, sheila miguez >>> > wrote: >>> > > Hi all, >>> > > >>> > > Could we have a contact address similar to what wiscon has for >>> > > accessibility information? I like this text from their access page, >>> > > . >>> > > >>> > > We always welcome discussion exploring how we can better accommodate >>> > > our members. [...] Please contact access at wiscon.info for accommodation >>> > > requests, questions or suggestions. >>> > > >>> > > If we find volunteers to help field emails, could we have an address >>> > like this? >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > sheila at codersquid.com >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> sheila at codersquid.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://katyhuff.github.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Scipy-organizers mailing list >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers From vp73nkaa at inventec.com Mon Nov 25 05:19:12 2013 From: vp73nkaa at inventec.com (=?GB2312?B?uvrLs7Tv?=) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:19:12 -0000 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] =?gb2312?b?c2NpcHktb3JnYW5pemVyc6O6zqLKsbT6?= =?gb2312?b?tLTU7LTzu/q74Q==?= Message-ID: <20131125101908.0347A3246B@scipy.org> From andy.terrel at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 10:31:26 2013 From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:31:26 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Happy Thanksgiving! SciPy2014 Summary Message-ID: Hello All, I've been meaning to send this out a for a few weeks, but during that time I've been overly busy. There has been quite a lot happening with the conference and I wanted to share some of their work. First, I want to say we got a message yesterday that Google will sponsor the meeting. So yay! This year we do want to highlight the Google Summer of Code's 10th anniversary. To do that we will have a BoF for all the participants to come discuss (with some goodies from GSOC) and a social event. I'm very excited about this highlight as I have seen GSOC really help projects in our community explore new features and spring with new life. Our Technical team is underway designing and updating our web presence. Pretty soon they hope to have something that we can test and get ready for our January call for participation. To that end we have a new asynchronous method of communication IRC! Dial into freenode and head over to #scipy-conf for chatting. We are still waiting on replies from our plenaries and hope to have that nailed down by the end of next month. The program committee is still forming, please send them names of anyone you would recommend to be on the committee. The SciPy2013 proceedings have gone online. I still have to put up the 2011. Unfortunately 2012 was never reviewed. We are still discussing with the proceedings committee about how to proceed with this. The CSD focus issue call has gone out. If anyone you know who presented at 2013 and have not received an invitation, please let me know. For the most part the review and publication will be taken care of by the journal and the focus issue's guest editors. The sponsorship team is working hard but can use any contacts you may have that would be interested in helping the SciPy community. Please let Brett know. Due to an increase in prices at the center and some doubt that our top donors are returning, we have raised the prices by $75 for the conference. We are still quite a bit below similar conferences and my hope is that as we find more sponsors we can offer better early bird rates. The prices will go on the website soon. Okay I think most people are working on getting details ready for the Jan call for participation. Please let me know if you need any guidance or help getting started. Thanks, Andy From scopatz at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 05:32:44 2013 From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:32:44 +0200 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Happy Thanksgiving! SciPy2014 Summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the update, Andy, Great news about Google! Be Well Anthony On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > Hello All, > > I've been meaning to send this out a for a few weeks, but during that > time I've been overly busy. There has been quite a lot happening with > the conference and I wanted to share some of their work. > > First, I want to say we got a message yesterday that Google will > sponsor the meeting. So yay! This year we do want to highlight the > Google Summer of Code's 10th anniversary. To do that we will have a > BoF for all the participants to come discuss (with some goodies from > GSOC) and a social event. I'm very excited about this highlight as I > have seen GSOC really help projects in our community explore new > features and spring with new life. > > Our Technical team is underway designing and updating our web > presence. Pretty soon they hope to have something that we can test > and get ready for our January call for participation. To that end we > have a new asynchronous method of communication IRC! Dial into > freenode and head over to #scipy-conf for chatting. > > We are still waiting on replies from our plenaries and hope to have > that nailed down by the end of next month. > > The program committee is still forming, please send them names of > anyone you would recommend to be on the committee. > > The SciPy2013 proceedings have gone online. I still have to put up > the 2011. Unfortunately 2012 was never reviewed. We are still > discussing with the proceedings committee about how to proceed with > this. > > The CSD focus issue call has gone out. If anyone you know who > presented at 2013 and have not received an invitation, please let me > know. For the most part the review and publication will be taken care > of by the journal and the focus issue's guest editors. > > The sponsorship team is working hard but can use any contacts you may > have that would be interested in helping the SciPy community. Please > let Brett know. > > Due to an increase in prices at the center and some doubt that our top > donors are returning, we have raised the prices by $75 for the > conference. We are still quite a bit below similar conferences and my > hope is that as we find more sponsors we can offer better early bird > rates. The prices will go on the website soon. > > Okay I think most people are working on getting details ready for the > Jan call for participation. Please let me know if you need any > guidance or help getting started. > > Thanks, > Andy > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > From jrocher at enthought.com Fri Nov 29 21:25:36 2013 From: jrocher at enthought.com (Jonathan Rocher) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:25:36 -0600 Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Happy Thanksgiving! SciPy2014 Summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the update Andy, and congrats for so many achievements already. Jonathan On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote: > Thanks for the update, Andy, > > Great news about Google! > > Be Well > Anthony > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Andy Ray Terrel >wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > I've been meaning to send this out a for a few weeks, but during that > > time I've been overly busy. There has been quite a lot happening with > > the conference and I wanted to share some of their work. > > > > First, I want to say we got a message yesterday that Google will > > sponsor the meeting. So yay! This year we do want to highlight the > > Google Summer of Code's 10th anniversary. To do that we will have a > > BoF for all the participants to come discuss (with some goodies from > > GSOC) and a social event. I'm very excited about this highlight as I > > have seen GSOC really help projects in our community explore new > > features and spring with new life. > > > > Our Technical team is underway designing and updating our web > > presence. Pretty soon they hope to have something that we can test > > and get ready for our January call for participation. To that end we > > have a new asynchronous method of communication IRC! Dial into > > freenode and head over to #scipy-conf for chatting. > > > > We are still waiting on replies from our plenaries and hope to have > > that nailed down by the end of next month. > > > > The program committee is still forming, please send them names of > > anyone you would recommend to be on the committee. > > > > The SciPy2013 proceedings have gone online. I still have to put up > > the 2011. Unfortunately 2012 was never reviewed. We are still > > discussing with the proceedings committee about how to proceed with > > this. > > > > The CSD focus issue call has gone out. If anyone you know who > > presented at 2013 and have not received an invitation, please let me > > know. For the most part the review and publication will be taken care > > of by the journal and the focus issue's guest editors. > > > > The sponsorship team is working hard but can use any contacts you may > > have that would be interested in helping the SciPy community. Please > > let Brett know. > > > > Due to an increase in prices at the center and some doubt that our top > > donors are returning, we have raised the prices by $75 for the > > conference. We are still quite a bit below similar conferences and my > > hope is that as we find more sponsors we can offer better early bird > > rates. The prices will go on the website soon. > > > > Okay I think most people are working on getting details ready for the > > Jan call for participation. Please let me know if you need any > > guidance or help getting started. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > > Scipy-organizers mailing list > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > > > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-organizers mailing list > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers > -- Jonathan Rocher, PhD Scientific software developer Enthought, Inc. jrocher at enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com