Hi Alexander,

As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to respond to.

As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this tool is used.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Lodewijk,

We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year.
This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't be of any use for anyone.

Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be merged into the code:
https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169
https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175
These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a problem creating new Montage campaigns in October.

Sincerely,
Alexander