Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evonline2002_webheads] WiaOC 2005 report - Teresa's reactions

Expand Messages
  • Teresa Almeida d'Eca
    Hi, Vance and everyone! I ll start by saying that I don t plan to volunteer for any committee for the sole reason that I don t know what lies ahead with my
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Vance and everyone!

      I'll start by saying that I don't plan to volunteer for any committee for
      the sole reason that I don't know what lies ahead with my mother - probably
      back surgery, since she's been in bed for over two months now and no
      significant change yet. If so, I will have to devote myself 100% for some
      time and maybe even take a leave of absence from school. Since I dislike not
      to be able keep my commitments, I prefer to stay on the side and help in a
      timely fashion, if you need me.

      I'm glad that 'beta' was dropped from the conference name. I brought that up
      with Daf in a chat a week ago and said that I felt it sounded as a test.
      Since we are all professionals able to organize and implement an online
      conf., it seemed unecessary. Besides, we have the sponsorship and very
      professional backup of Andy and Jonathan, who are pros in this. Daf and I
      came up with First WiA-OC. "C" for Conference and/or Convergence. Any
      comments?

      I've been following Dennis's CfP blog and webpage from the beginning and I
      definitely prefer this version.
      http://www.d-oliver.net/WiA-OC/callform.htm

      In my point of view, it's much more pratical and easier for those organizing
      the conf. program, for example, not to mention the referee committee, to
      immediately see the main info about each presentation, instead of having to
      go through/read all the text to find it out, as will be the case with
      http://www.d-oliver.net/WiA/callform.htm

      Checking options vs. describing is totally different. The former is, in my
      opinion, much simpler. On the other hand, when I submit a proposal, I
      definitely prefer to check things out rather than write about them.

      I don't really see the point in having the evaluation rubric accessible and
      definitely prefer the idea of "the referee team would likely get back to you
      and try to help you with your proposal if they had some suggestion for
      improvement that might ensure its acceptance".

      The fact that it's an online conf. and that there are no space and time
      limitations doesn't mean that (almost) anything should be accepted. My
      personal opinion: Accepting innovation, yes! Accepting innovation just for
      the exposure, no! 'Innovation with quality' or 'quality innovation' is what
      we need.

      As in any conference, there are deadlines for submitting proposals and I
      feel they should be kept. Besides, if there is a referee committee, it
      should vet all proposals and not just those up to Aug. 31. I may be seeing
      this in a wrong perspective, but I don't grasp your comment: "after that
      date, we intend to accept proposals and schedule them as long as there are
      spaces available, so presentation at the conference is not limited to
      refereed presentations. I intend to note on the program however which
      presentations have been refereed". I don't see the coherence here.

      My opinion: the deadline is Aug. 31, period. If not, then why have a
      deadline? And until when will you accept proposals? Till the last minute?!

      If you want to paste my personal impressions on the Moodle, please do.

      These are my reactions. I hope they are helpful and generate discussion.

      Teresa
    • Dafne
      Dear Tere and all, My comments inserted **** Teresa Almeida d Eca wrote: Hi, Vance and everyone! I ll start by saying that I don t plan
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Tere and all,

        My comments inserted ****

        Teresa Almeida d'Eca <tmvaz@...> wrote:

        Hi, Vance and everyone!

        I'll start by saying that I don't plan to volunteer for any committee for
        the sole reason that I don't know what lies ahead with my mother - probably
        back surgery, since she's been in bed for over two months now and no
        significant change yet. If so, I will have to devote myself 100% for some
        time and maybe even take a leave of absence from school. Since I dislike not
        to be able keep my commitments, I prefer to stay on the side and help in a
        timely fashion, if you need me.

        ****I think that you have made a wise decision, Tere. I really hope your mom gets well soon and that she won't need surgery. ****

        I'm glad that 'beta' was dropped from the conference name. I brought that up
        with Daf in a chat a week ago and said that I felt it sounded as a test.
        Since we are all professionals able to organize and implement an online
        conf., it seemed unecessary. Besides, we have the sponsorship and very
        professional backup of Andy and Jonathan, who are pros in this. Daf and I
        came up with First WiA-OC. "C" for Conference and/or Convergence. Any
        comments?

        ***** When we talked I agreed with your reasoning, and I brought it up in the conference Moodle. I am also glad "beta" was dropped from the conference title******

        I've been following Dennis's CfP blog and webpage from the beginning and I
        definitely prefer this version.
        http://www.d-oliver.net/WiA-OC/callform.htm

        In my point of view, it's much more pratical and easier for those organizing
        the conf. program, for example, not to mention the referee committee, to
        immediately see the main info about each presentation, instead of having to
        go through/read all the text to find it out, as will be the case with
        http://www.d-oliver.net/WiA/callform.htm

        Checking options vs. describing is totally different. The former is, in my
        opinion, much simpler. On the other hand, when I submit a proposal, I
        definitely prefer to check things out rather than write about them.

        *****I totally agree with you! I have been discussing this issue with Dennis and Vance. I think the earlier versions were much more friendly than the last one. As a possible presenter I would prefer the check-in boxes. I might even decide not to participate if I see that the CfP is too complex or implies more writing than the usual title, abstract and summary. If we want extra comments we can always add an "other" text box where needed.

        I also second that the previous version would be more convenient for the referee committee to process the proposals and pass the information, as organized as possible, to the program committee*****

        I don't really see the point in having the evaluation rubric accessible and
        definitely prefer the idea of "the referee team would likely get back to you
        and try to help you with your proposal if they had some suggestion for
        improvement that might ensure its acceptance".

        *****I have never seen a CfP with the evaluation rubric included. Presenters are given the criteria (e.g. title with no more than 7 words, number of words and guidelines for abstract and summary). So I agree with you here, again. And yes, the referee team can get back to the presenters if the proposal needs improvement******

        The fact that it's an online conf. and that there are no space and time
        limitations doesn't mean that (almost) anything should be accepted. My
        personal opinion: Accepting innovation, yes! Accepting innovation just for
        the exposure, no! 'Innovation with quality' or 'quality innovation' is what we need.

        ***AGREE 100%. We want to make this event a Successful one. As Mies van der Rohe says regarding architecture: "Less is More". In this context it would mean better to have less "quality presentations" than tons of presentations which lack quality.********

        As in any conference, there are deadlines for submitting proposals and I
        feel they should be kept. Besides, if there is a referee committee, it
        should vet all proposals and not just those up to Aug. 31. I may be seeing
        this in a wrong perspective, but I don't grasp your comment: "after that
        date, we intend to accept proposals and schedule them as long as there are
        spaces available, so presentation at the conference is not limited to
        refereed presentations. I intend to note on the program however which
        presentations have been refereed". I don't see the coherence here.

        My opinion: the deadline is Aug. 31, period. If not, then why have a
        deadline? And until when will you accept proposals? Till the last minute?!

        *****I will have to agree again, Tere. Everybody knows that conferences have deadlines and that doesn't scare presenters. Having deadlines is the only way to be able to accomplish tasks, especially when many people are involved in the planning and it is a big event. Conferences have many details to take care of and each committee should have deadlines for their work. The program committee should have their program ready well in advance so it can be posted online and motivate people to attend as audience. That's what conference organizers want, not only presenters but also audience for the presentations *******

        If you want to paste my personal impressions on the Moodle, please do.

        These are my reactions. I hope they are helpful and generate discussion.

        Teresa

        *****I would also like to add that we should stick (I know Vance does not like the word "restrict") to the various venues we are offering (Learning Times, Moodle, Alado, Tapped In and Worldbridges). We have contact with the administrators of these sites and we can trouble-shoot if we have problems. This is our first conference, and we should try to make it easier for everybody. I think we are offering more venues than any other conference that I can think of.****


        I would also like to hear more opinions ;-)

        daf





        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Sports
        Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • CJones
        Hi, Daf, Tere, and all, I agree wholeheartedly with all that Teresa and Daf have said about the conference/convergence. I also commend Teresa for making the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, Daf, Tere, and all,

          I agree wholeheartedly with all that Teresa and Daf have said about
          the conference/convergence.

          I also commend Teresa for making the best choice about where her true
          responsibilities lie at the moment--with her mother. However, thanks
          for your input, Teresa. It is most appreciated whenever you have the
          time to add it.

          Chris

          --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Dafne <dygonza@y...> wrote:
          > Dear Tere and all,
          >
          > My comments inserted ****
          >
          > Teresa Almeida d'Eca <tmvaz@m...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi, Vance and everyone!
          >
          > I'll start by saying that I don't plan to volunteer for any
          committee for
          > the sole reason that I don't know what lies ahead with my mother -
          probably
          > back surgery, since she's been in bed for over two months now and no
          > significant change yet. If so, I will have to devote myself 100% for
          some
          > time and maybe even take a leave of absence from school. Since I
          dislike not
          > to be able keep my commitments, I prefer to stay on the side and
          help in a
          > timely fashion, if you need me.
          >
          > ****I think that you have made a wise decision, Tere. I really hope
          your mom gets well soon and that she won't need surgery. ****
          >
          > I'm glad that 'beta' was dropped from the conference name. I brought
          that up
          > with Daf in a chat a week ago and said that I felt it sounded as a
          test.
          > Since we are all professionals able to organize and implement an online
          > conf., it seemed unecessary. Besides, we have the sponsorship and very
          > professional backup of Andy and Jonathan, who are pros in this. Daf
          and I
          > came up with First WiA-OC. "C" for Conference and/or Convergence. Any
          > comments?
          >
          > ***** When we talked I agreed with your reasoning, and I brought it
          up in the conference Moodle. I am also glad "beta" was dropped from
          the conference title******
          >
          > I've been following Dennis's CfP blog and webpage from the beginning
          and I
          > definitely prefer this version.
          > http://www.d-oliver.net/WiA-OC/callform.htm
          >
          > In my point of view, it's much more pratical and easier for those
          organizing
          > the conf. program, for example, not to mention the referee
          committee, to
          > immediately see the main info about each presentation, instead of
          having to
          > go through/read all the text to find it out, as will be the case with
          > http://www.d-oliver.net/WiA/callform.htm
          >
          > Checking options vs. describing is totally different. The former is,
          in my
          > opinion, much simpler. On the other hand, when I submit a proposal, I
          > definitely prefer to check things out rather than write about them.
          >
          > *****I totally agree with you! I have been discussing this issue
          with Dennis and Vance. I think the earlier versions were much more
          friendly than the last one. As a possible presenter I would prefer the
          check-in boxes. I might even decide not to participate if I see that
          the CfP is too complex or implies more writing than the usual title,
          abstract and summary. If we want extra comments we can always add an
          "other" text box where needed.
          >
          > I also second that the previous version would be more convenient for
          the referee committee to process the proposals and pass the
          information, as organized as possible, to the program committee*****
          >
          > I don't really see the point in having the evaluation rubric
          accessible and
          > definitely prefer the idea of "the referee team would likely get
          back to you
          > and try to help you with your proposal if they had some suggestion for
          > improvement that might ensure its acceptance".
          >
          > *****I have never seen a CfP with the evaluation rubric included.
          Presenters are given the criteria (e.g. title with no more than 7
          words, number of words and guidelines for abstract and summary). So I
          agree with you here, again. And yes, the referee team can get back to
          the presenters if the proposal needs improvement******
          >
          > The fact that it's an online conf. and that there are no space and time
          > limitations doesn't mean that (almost) anything should be accepted. My
          > personal opinion: Accepting innovation, yes! Accepting innovation
          just for
          > the exposure, no! 'Innovation with quality' or 'quality innovation'
          is what we need.
          >
          > ***AGREE 100%. We want to make this event a Successful one. As Mies
          van der Rohe says regarding architecture: "Less is More". In this
          context it would mean better to have less "quality presentations" than
          tons of presentations which lack quality.********
          >
          > As in any conference, there are deadlines for submitting proposals
          and I
          > feel they should be kept. Besides, if there is a referee committee, it
          > should vet all proposals and not just those up to Aug. 31. I may be
          seeing
          > this in a wrong perspective, but I don't grasp your comment: "after
          that
          > date, we intend to accept proposals and schedule them as long as
          there are
          > spaces available, so presentation at the conference is not limited to
          > refereed presentations. I intend to note on the program however which
          > presentations have been refereed". I don't see the coherence here.
          >
          > My opinion: the deadline is Aug. 31, period. If not, then why have a
          > deadline? And until when will you accept proposals? Till the last
          minute?!
          >
          > *****I will have to agree again, Tere. Everybody knows that
          conferences have deadlines and that doesn't scare presenters. Having
          deadlines is the only way to be able to accomplish tasks, especially
          when many people are involved in the planning and it is a big event.
          Conferences have many details to take care of and each committee
          should have deadlines for their work. The program committee should
          have their program ready well in advance so it can be posted online
          and motivate people to attend as audience. That's what conference
          organizers want, not only presenters but also audience for the
          presentations *******
          >
          > If you want to paste my personal impressions on the Moodle, please do.
          >
          > These are my reactions. I hope they are helpful and generate discussion.
          >
          > Teresa
          >
          > *****I would also like to add that we should stick (I know Vance
          does not like the word "restrict") to the various venues we are
          offering (Learning Times, Moodle, Alado, Tapped In and Worldbridges).
          We have contact with the administrators of these sites and we can
          trouble-shoot if we have problems. This is our first conference, and
          we should try to make it easier for everybody. I think we are offering
          more venues than any other conference that I can think of.****
          >
          >
          > I would also like to hear more opinions ;-)
          >
          > daf
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Sports
          > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Teresa Almeida d'Eca
          Dear Chris, Thank you very much for your very sweet words and support re: my mother. Much appreciated. :-) Hugs Teresa
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Chris,

            Thank you very much for your very sweet words and support re: my mother.
            Much appreciated. :-)

            Hugs

            Teresa
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.