Our plan was to have the current conference chair (=chair of the group) work with OCS alongside the incoming group chair/conference chair so expertise and historical memory gets transferred along with training. Our initial experience of OCS suggests that each chair might want to tweak the setup (depending on the complexity of the conference, e.g.) but the basics of OCS would remain the same. So far we've found OCS very powerful (= complex, a drawback), and only occasional not as clear or intuitive as we would like. We're hoping that we can address some of these issues by providing clear instructions on the conference website and perhaps put togeher a simple internal FAQ for program managers. -c On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:37:08 -0400 From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Conferencing software for next year
Ben makes an interesting point. 'The imagination of the program chair' what what brought me oh prolly around 500 or so hours of labor over several years. In fact, it was the constant requirements of the reimagining of process of program chairs that forced the move to OJS from a custom system. The idea was that, we can no longer afford to invest in endless customization and specifically the endless re- imagination of the conference and the conference process. We need a fixed model, and OJS was what was supposed to help to enforce that fixedness, but really it doesn't seem to have accomplished that, so perhaps we should resolve the problem more through policy than through getting a new system? the system ojs system does seem to work for many different conferences.
On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Ben Anderson wrote:
On 22 Oct 2008, at 18:34, Ingbert Floyd wrote:
I think it would be interesting to see a group discussion of conference system requirements by internet experts.
one such 'requirement' is that the system can support the 'submission/review/response workflow' that the conference organizers want. My experience of the IR9 review process (others may disagree) was that whilst the progamme chair & reviewers had a view of the process they wanted, the system had a slightly different and rather 'fixed' model. This produced a certain amount of confusion.
If the IR10 programme chair/committee's mental model of the submission process is not yet defined then deciding on a tool will be a bit premature...(unless you are happy to adapt your process to what the tool(s) provide)
Ben _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Chris Hodge University of Tennessee