Add more granularity to the reviewing process in the Abstract Module

[jbenito]

Not just Track coordinators, but using rules to define different groups of reviewers so Abstracts are assigned directly to those groups

[jbenito]

Feedback from Marco Cirelli:

I've had a look at the proposal and I have some comments. I must say, however, that I have never worked seriously with the current version of abstract reviewing: when I organized ICHEP in 2010 the old system was still in place (Track Managers and no Reviewing tab).

- My general impression, without intending to be negative, is that the reviewing workflow is already quite complex and probably beyond what is needed for any average conference, at least for my experience. Most of the times the Track Managers (or Reviewers) just need to a yes/no option. It would therefore be helpful if, together with added flexibility (which is always a good thing) INDICO could implement shortcuts that can be used in the most trivial situations. I suggest some shortcuts below.

- Anyway, having said this, since you are working on this aspect now, I think the proposed modification is good and allows more flexibility.
It allows to preserve the association Track <--> Reviewer (using the rule), therefore: good! 

- A little 'problem' I've thought of: if a Reviewer decides to 'Propose [an abstract] for another Track' and there is no rule in this other Track that assigns it to another Reviewer, what does it happen of this abstract? Doesn't this risk of creating confusion? On the old system, once an abstract falls in a Track, for sure there was someone who had to take care of it... 

[jbenito]

Feedback from Yves Schutz:

Quick comments after a quick reading
1. question 1: This is introducing quite a granularity which would be difficult to manage. However I could find usefull to select abstracts that the reviewer CANNOT see (for example his own abstracts, or the abstracts from his students, experiment, institute)... This could only be done manually on a case by case... But imagine the matrx: 10 tracks and 40 reviewers and 500 abtracts ... A full time job to assign abstract by abstract. 
I continue reading: certainly more rules are needed, user customized rules ?
It is interesting to have these new way of assigning abstracts but as you saw the complexity can grow quickly. 

2. I though there will be more than one question ... ;)

3. I have a point: reviewers were confused when they saw an abstract already reviewed by someone else and marked for example "Proposed to accept for.." They thought that they would overwrite this status with their own judgement. I did not find either the possibility to update my own rating except by overwriting it.