Re: WiaOC 2005 report - Teresa's reactions
- Hi, Daf, Tere, and all,
I agree wholeheartedly with all that Teresa and Daf have said about
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.
--- In email@example.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
> the sole reason that I don't know what lies ahead with my mother -
> 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
> time and maybe even take a leave of absence from school. Since I
> 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
> with Daf in a chat a week ago and said that I felt it sounded as a
> 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
> came up with First WiA-OC. "C" for Conference and/or Convergence. Any
> ***** 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
> definitely prefer this version.
> In my point of view, it's much more pratical and easier for those
> the conf. program, for example, not to mention the referee
> immediately see the main info about each presentation, instead of
> go through/read all the text to find it out, as will be the case with
> Checking options vs. describing is totally different. The former is,
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> this in a wrong perspective, but I don't grasp your comment: "after
> date, we intend to accept proposals and schedule them as long as
> 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
> *****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
> 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.
> *****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 ;-)
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]