RE: [adhoc] Re: PC chair, 2006

Hi -- I'm looking forward to the conference already as well!

One minor thing that might be worth flagging -- if you'll allow me to do so in my role as ADHOC lurker, and past conference ctte member -- is to say that there has been concern across past years with deadline dates for submissions in response to the call for papers. One has been that most assume that there will be a deadline extension and, if I'm remembering at least one instance correctly, a second deadline extension. Another has been that this pattern has often pushed back the reviewing of papers to Xmas or later, something we've discussed for a few years now as having caused some awkwardness.

Maybe this is something worth addressing, as we move toward the first DH conference under Lisa Lena's chairing . . . .

See you in a few days,

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Julia Flanders [mailto:Julia_Flanders_at_Brown.edu]
Sent: June 8, 2005 12:33 PM
To: Lisa Lena Opas-Hanninen; John Unsworth
Cc: S.Horobin; Stefan Sinclair; fortier_at_cc.umanitoba.ca; Alejandro Bia;
kshawkin_at_umich.edu; adhoc
Subject: [adhoc] Re: PC chair, 2006

I agree with Lisa Lena, I think that giving the conference a theme
tends to overload an already full conceptual space.

I'd also like to suggest that the PC take this opportunity to trim
down the call for papers. Over the past few years the CFP has become
very long, which has at least two disadvantages:

--it takes the PC a long time each year to agree on all the language
to be included
--it takes much too long to read and digest

Most of the successful conferences of which I'm aware seem to get by
with much shorter CFPs, which essentially announce the event, provide
basic logistics (dates, location) and a very quick summary of what
the conference covers. Anything else can be provided at the
conference web site, including details of how to submit papers,
bursaries, etc. In particular, the list of suggested proposal topics
has become so long that it now implies comprehensiveness, rather than
simply standing as a hint of the general scope of the conference. If
we could pare that down to something like "proposals for papers in
all areas of digital humanities research and pedagogy" I think that
would be a significant improvement.

Looking forward to the conference already!

best wishes, Julia

At 2:58 PM +0300 6/8/05, Lisa Lena Opas-Hanninen wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Thanks to John for the message and pointing to the relevant documents. I'm in
>a
>real rush at the moment (have a student finishing up and needing last minute
>stuff for doctorate..), so I've not had time to look at the programme yet to
>find a meeting slot (or two), but will do so in the next day or two.
>
>However, I would like to make it known now already that I am very keen on
>sorting out the call for papers during Victoria into its final format - since
>we are a bit behind, Paris hasn't got any bumpf materials yet and thus I
>thought that it would be good if we could iron this out so that the call could
>be (possibly) distributed at the very end of the conference - or as close to
>that as possible. SO, as John mentioned, could you please look at the previous
>call, the documents up on the website, and think about any possible changes we
>might have to make to the basic call draft (it's supposed to be a basic
>outline, but slightly modified from year to year to reflect what the PC
>thinks...). Personally, I'd prefer not to give the conference a
>theme - I think
>the theme of publicising a new name will be more than enough - but I'm waiting
>to hear what the rest of you think.
>
>LL
>
_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Wed Jun 08 2005 - 16:49:38 EDT