[Air-L] Conferencing software for next year

[jeremy hunsinger]

yep, it is all pkp to me:)
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Michael Zimmer wrote:

> I think Jeremy means OCS (open conference system), which, clearly,  
> is closely aligned with OJS (open journal system). To me, that  
> integration is a meaningful advantage of using OCS, and I concur  
> with Jeremy's insight that this might be more an issue of policy/ 
> practice, rather than the technology.
>
> -mz
>
> -- 
> Michael Zimmer, PhD
> Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies
> Associate, Center for Information Policy Research
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> e: zimmerm at uwm.edu
> w: www.michaelzimmer.org
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:37 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
>
>> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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/