Talk:SIGCSE 2014
What will our purpose be? Is it to disseminate info about what we are doing? Is it to identify prospective POSSE attendees?
GH: Yes and yes.
1) Event the day before? Full-day workshop? Likely Wednesday March 5th.
I assume the intent here would be different than it was last time, since most of the activities have been created (though some need modifications). Would we be looking to refine what we have?
GH: perhaps a material development sprint?
2) A regular workshop? We could do the Project Selection workshop or we could do something related to any of the POSSE activities. Thoughts?
Would we get face-2-face time with more faculty doing a regular workshop than we would with a pre-conference event? What can we do to boost the turnout, compared to last time? Would this be less costly? Here I'm wondering if we are concerned about having enough money left in our budgets to fund the third year? Would the workshop be a better venue to entice prospective POSSE attendees?
GH: should we consider a FOSS tools workshop?
3) MouseTrap poster?
I would say yes since I see no reason not to. I think it's a great example of what we are trying to do.
GH: What's the relationship to what we did at ITiCSE?
4) Vertically integrated HFOSS day? – GH has participant support money as well as travel money on InspireCT grant.
I like this since I've always loved the vertically integrated teams idea! Would this be a pre-coference event? Would we need to develop a set of activities? Could this be a regular workshop? If it's a regular workshop, I'm wondering if we would need fewer materials/activities. Would the integration of the two (vertically integrated teams and HFOSS) attract a greater number of faculty?
5) Panel on “Planning to use HFOSS in classes”. This would be a panel of POSSE alums who would talk about how they are planning on using HFOSS in the classroom.
I'm thinking this would be of interest with the general SIGCSE community. I think we would want to make sure that attendees walk away with specific activities for specific classes.
6) Do another round on the evaluation model. My recollection is that this was well received. How different would it need to be, compared to last time?
