Hi Stephen, The criteria I suggested before last week's telcon were the relevance to Grid, the international scope, the quality of the content and the relevance to OGF. I'm happy to consider other criteria that people wish to suggest. Best wishes, Dave.
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen M Pickles [mailto:Stephen.Pickles@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: 19 February 2007 13:53 To: Dave Berry; ogf20pc@ogf.org Subject: RE: [ogf20pc] OGF20 community submissions for ranking
Dave,
Is there a definitive list of criteria against which these proposals should be ranked?
Stephen
________________________________
From: ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Berry Sent: 15 February 2007 12:41 To: ogf20pc@ogf.org Subject: [ogf20pc] OGF20 community submissions for ranking
Dear PC,
Please find attached a spreadsheet that summarises the proposals received via the CFP. Our immediate task is to rank the submissions on the first sheet, which lists the workshop proposals. As discussed, please use the following ranking:
1 - Not suitable for OGF. 2 - A session that fails some of the criteria and should only be included if we need to fill slots. 3 - A good session that fits all or most of the criteria; to be included if slots is available. 4 - A good session that fits all the criteria; to be included if possible. 5 - An excellent session that should be included no matter what
Do add comments where appropriate, e.g. if you wish to recommend merging with another session, or accepting with fewer sessions.
Please mail your rankings to me and I will summarise. We will discuss the results on next Tuesday's call.
Note: non-workshop proposals have been moved to the other sheets - Enterprise sessions, Grid Means Business, and Other. Please note that these sheets do not show the complete line-up for these tracks; only those submitted via the CFP.
Best wishes,
Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA +44 131 651 4039