[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
|
Not sure if this will help much but there is an option to move the Legos+Eclipse+Java short tutorial into the Mashup category instead of the Java category.
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3660
It would be my vote to consolidate Gunnar's PDE Build tutorial with Pascal's (et al.) if we need to. I think PDE Build is an important topic (that isn't really well documented imho!) that should have a long tutorial devoted to it. If anyone is serious about developing products on top of Eclipse, they will have to run into PDE build.
Cheers,
---
Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | +1 860 839 2465
![Inactive hide details for Richard Gronback ---11/14/2006 09:57:09 AM---Well, it seems Data Tooling is locked up: 3 submissions]()
Richard Gronback ---11/14/2006 09:57:09 AM---Well, it seems Data Tooling is locked up: 3 submissions for 3 slots, all are already ACCEPTED.
| From: | Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| To: | Eclipsecon Program Committee list <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 11/14/2006 09:57 AM |
| Subject: | Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials |
Well, it seems Data Tooling is locked up: 3 submissions for 3 slots, all are already ACCEPTED.
C/C++ has 4 submissions and 2 slots.
Mashup has 2 submissions and 3 slots, so we have a Short Tutorial to spare. Also, I’m not sure we need both 3636 (Enterprise Team Development with Maven and Eclipse) in Mashup, along with 3639 (Team Collaboration with Eclipse and Maven) in Fundamentals. Thoughts?
Fundamentals has the 2 Long Tutorials submitted (below) with only 1 allocation. There is a Short Tutorial alternative (3583) to the PDE Build Long Tutorial submission. Also, 3674 mentions they can switch to a short (plus, there’s a book for this one). I know you’re a fan of the Long Tutorial, but it seems we can fit nearly all into the schedule if we convert the long to shorts, and use the Maven submission in Mashup.
The Java track now has 6 short submissions for 1 long and 2 short allocations, which Philippe has already asked about converting to 5 shorts. Not much play here.
Mobile and Embedded has 4 short submissions for 3 slots, so again if the content looks good to Doug, not much play.
Modeling has 2 long submissions for 1 slot, and 5 short submissions for 2 slots. Definitely no play here.
OSGi has 5 long submissions for 1 slot, and 2 short submissions for its 2 slots. I doubt Peter will find a slot to contribute.
Rich Client has 2 long submissions (below) for 1 allocation, and 5 short submissions for 3 slots. One of the longs has a short alternative.
Reporting and Test & Performance each have the exact number of submissions for their allocations. Are these looking good for acceptance?
SOA Development has 2 short submissions for their 2 short allocation.
Technology and Scripting has 5 short submissions and 3 slots. Bjorn has voted on 2 already.
Tools has 4 short submissions with 3 slots, and 3 with PC member votes.
And then there’s Web Development. Tim has already expressed the need for more slots as well, but it looks from the above that there’s only a short tutorial slot from Mashup up for grabs; that is, unless others on this list chime in soon.
Considering what our public conscience has to say (http://wassim-melhem.blogspot.com/2006/11/elephant-in-room.html) we should also consider the point regarding the balance of our tracks based on expected popularity. Are we missing the mark?
Thanks,
Rich
On 11/13/06 9:43 PM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To
"Eclipsecon Program Committee list" <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
I could easily fill more short tutorial slots if someone wants to donate them - with AJAX, JSF, and JPA sub-projects all incubating in WTP plus our existing technologies, we have 7 strong abstracts that could all easily merit inclusion.
I can also supply 2 long tutorials (i.e., 1 additional over my allotted one) if there is an opportunity to do so.
-----Original Message-----
From: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Gronback
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:24 PM
To: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
Are there any other slots we'd like to reallocate? Do we all have
interesting/valuable content to fill our currently allocated slots? If not,
can they be contributed to another track? Which tracks (really) need
additional slots?
Thanks,
Rich
On 11/13/06 4:06 PM, "Philippe P Mulet" <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> About the Java track, I agree we should look at converting the long slot
> into 3 short ones. The nice thing about short tutorials is that you may
> attend several in one day.
> Also, I do not see any submission on some JDT fundamentals. I think someone
> on the JDT team should submit one, even if a bit late.
> This extra contribution could be swallowed by the long->short conversion.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer
> <Jeff_McAffer@ca.
> ibm.com> To
> Sent by: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
> eclipse.org-eclip <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
> secon-program-com mittee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> mittee-bounces@ec cc
> lipse.org
> Subject
> Re:
> 11/11/2006 04:31 [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
> AM mittee] Re: long tutorials
>
>
> Please respond to
> Eclipsecon
> Program Committee
> list
> <eclipse.org-ecli
> psecon-program-co
> mmittee@eclipse.o
> rg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: To
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-comm Eclipsecon Program Committee
> ittee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx list
> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
> -committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 11/10/2006 06:29 PM cc
>
> Subject
> Please respond to Re:
> Eclipsecon Program Committee list [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-co -committee] Re: long tutorials
> mmittee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 to move this over
> to Mashup which needs a bit more love.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ---
> Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | +1 860 839 2465
>
> (Embedded image moved to file: pic05698.gif)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> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard C. Gronback
> Borland Software Corporation
> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 860 227 9215_______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
> tee
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
> tee
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
> tee
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
