Feature request: publishing abstracts for accepted submissions for the RIPE events
Hi all, During a call for papers for each meeting organized by RIPE NCC, a speaker is expected to provide an abstract for each submission of a plenary talk. These abstracts are then evaluated by the corresponding programme committee. They serve a purpose of providing an outline of the presentation, key points and topics covered in the talk. E.g. sometimes the title of a submission isn't in any way self-explanatory, but the abstract helps the programme committee members to quickly get an idea of what's going to be presented and whether it is relevant to the interests of the community. However, these abstracts are not published together with the agenda, they aren't even available in the mailing list -- though even that would be sort of suboptimal in my opinion, but anyway -- they're just getting lost forever. I believe it would be much appreciated by the audience if those abstracts for accepted submissions are published on the Web site of a meeting together with plenary agenda. A title itself often doesn't tell the audience a lot about the content of the talk, while an abstract certainly does. Say, once we had a submission for the ENOG meeting -- accepted later for no less than an opening plenary session -- called "Operating a secure network" -- go figure! NANOG meetings, APRICOT and other conferences do maintain a policy of publishing this ahead of an event, along with the agenda. Maybe there's a solid reason why NCC avoids doing that? I don't know, but I'll be glad to figure out. Any opinions on this one? | Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58
Hi Artyom, I'm not sure why this thread hasn't gained any traction yet, but I think it's a good idea. I'm CCing Gergana from RIPE NCC External Relations so she can pass the suggestion along as well. Best, -Michael On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:20 AM, Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
During a call for papers for each meeting organized by RIPE NCC, a speaker is expected to provide an abstract for each submission of a plenary talk. These abstracts are then evaluated by the corresponding programme committee. They serve a purpose of providing an outline of the presentation, key points and topics covered in the talk.
E.g. sometimes the title of a submission isn't in any way self-explanatory, but the abstract helps the programme committee members to quickly get an idea of what's going to be presented and whether it is relevant to the interests of the community.
However, these abstracts are not published together with the agenda, they aren't even available in the mailing list -- though even that would be sort of suboptimal in my opinion, but anyway -- they're just getting lost forever.
I believe it would be much appreciated by the audience if those abstracts for accepted submissions are published on the Web site of a meeting together with plenary agenda. A title itself often doesn't tell the audience a lot about the content of the talk, while an abstract certainly does. Say, once we had a submission for the ENOG meeting -- accepted later for no less than an opening plenary session -- called "Operating a secure network" -- go figure!
NANOG meetings, APRICOT and other conferences do maintain a policy of publishing this ahead of an event, along with the agenda. Maybe there's a solid reason why NCC avoids doing that? I don't know, but I'll be glad to figure out.
Any opinions on this one?
| Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58
On 8 May 2018, at 01:20, Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe it would be much appreciated by the audience if those abstracts for accepted submissions are published on the Web site of a meeting together with plenary agenda. A title itself often doesn't tell the audience a lot about the content of the talk, while an abstract certainly does.
This is a good suggestion and I hope the PC takes note.
NANOG meetings, APRICOT and other conferences do maintain a policy of publishing this ahead of an event, along with the agenda. Maybe there's a solid reason why NCC avoids doing that?
Well RIPE holds meetings, not conferences. [But that seems to be changing unfortunately.] It's up to the Programme Committee, not the NCC, to decide what information is provided about the plenary sessions. WG chairs have the same responsibility for their WG agendas. The NCC just arrange to publish that information. They're not responsible for the content.
participants (3)
-
Artyom Gavrichenkov -
Jim Reid -
Michael J. Oghia