[Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program?

Kristen Thyng kthyng at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 13:57:01 EST 2013 

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 <katyhuff at gmail.com> 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 <scopatz at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Kristen Thyng <kthyng at gmail.com> 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 <katyhuff at gmail.com> 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 <jrocher at enthought.com
>>> > >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 <scopatz at gmail.com>
>>> > 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

More information about the Scipy-organizers mailing list