| Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials |
There seems to be a lack of long tutorial slots. Actually I could have sworn that there were 9 but now I see there is only 8?! Perhaps one got converted? I am reluctant to convert such a scarce and valuable resource. Swapping perhaps but conversion is a challenge IMHO. Several tracks would benefit from having additional long slots. I wouldn't begin to know how to allocate since we all have our own biases.
Jeff
Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 11/10/2006 06:29 PMPlease respond to
Eclipsecon Program Committee list <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Eclipsecon Program Committee list <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
SubjectRe: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
Looking at the Java track, it seems with 0 long and 5 short submissions (1 long and 2 short allocations), Philippe may want to convert its 1 long into 3 shorts as well? (although, 3639 appears to be more of a Fundamental topic)
OSGi and Web Development appear to be the most popular, in terms of submissions and the need for additional allocations.
Thanks,
Rich
On 11/10/06 3:46 PM, "Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’ve updated the submission page to reflect this change (2 Mashup Long tutorials -> 1 RCP Long Tutorial + 3 Mashup Short Tutorials).
Best,
Rich
On 11/10/06 10:25 AM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <zx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure, I share this sentiment.
I would also consider doing some slight triage on http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3660 <http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3660> to move this over to Mashup which needs a bit more love.
Cheers,
---
Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | +1 860 839 2465
Richard Gronback ---11/10/2006 09:14:53 AM---Sorry, I guess I had it in my mind that we’d already allocated one of the Mashup long tutorials to RCP ;)
From:Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:"'Bjorn Freeman-Benson'" <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Donald Smith <donald.smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Doug Gaff'" <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'John Graham'" <jograham@xxxxxxxxxx>, John Duimovich <John_Duimovich@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Oisin Hurley'" <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>, Peter Kriens <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Philippe P Mulet'" <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Rosenbaum <scottr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Doddapaneni, Srinivas P'" <srinivas.p.doddapaneni@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Wagner'" <twagner@xxxxxxx>, Chris Aniszczyk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Date:11/10/2006 09:14 AM
Subject:Re: long tutorials
Sorry, I guess I had it in my mind that we’d already allocated one of the Mashup long tutorials to RCP ;)
+1 on the recommendation to re-allocate 1 long tutorial to RCP from Mashup and split the remaining long into 3 shorts. Chris?
- Rich
On 11/10/06 8:34 AM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/10/2006 08:16:46 AM:
> Bjorn, can you please help us get a mailing list set up?
+1
> It sounds like Jeff is wishing there were a day-long RCP tutorial, but
> cannot find someone to submit one (?). Of course, we're free to shift
> allocations in order to get the best program, so whatever agreements you
> come up with is fine, provided we fit our room constraints.
No, the opposite. I have two long tutorial submissions and no slots to put them in.
> Does anyone have a long tutorial they think might be more appropriate for
> the Mashup long tutorial, or should we split this into 3 short tutorials? I
> was considering asking the submitters of
> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627 <http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627> <http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627> <http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627> to add a connection
> to WTP/DTP/etc. in order to make it more of a true (cross-top-level) mashup.
I think you should donate that slot to the RCP track :-)
> Something Jeff asked about yesterday was the PC Voting, which I agree should
> be open to all PC members, not just recognized by reps from their respective
> tracks. For most tracks, having a single PC rep vote and then a status
> change for acceptance doesn't make sense. Bjorn, can we make this change
> and therefore make the PC votes more general?
+1 This would allow the PC to operate in a more cohesive way.
Jeff