From:
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Gronback
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007
9:55 AM
To: Eclipsecon
Program Committee list
Subject: Re:
[eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Long Talk and Panel final roundup
Here’s an update, based on
the latest allocation tweaking I’ve done, and considering what is still
not accepted for Long Talks and Panels:
- We now have 70 long talks and 100 short talks
(I took my leftover 6 shorts and robbed the rest from Mashup - sorry).
- All long talk slots are “spoken
for” and there’s even the potential Mike may come in with one
that I’ll need to make room for (as I already did for a room crisis
on Thursday afternoon by cramming long talks next to demos in a very small
space).
- I need all panels decided ASAP (today), as
I’ve already stuck one long talk in the Theater, so I’m really
hoping SOA, Test & Perf, and Technology will not use their panels so
we’ll have a little more buffer room ;)
In short, I find it hard to believe we’ll be accommodating more long
talks. Another factor is that every time I shuffle things, it screws up
people’s recommended tracks. Of course, it’s more important
to avoid speaker and topic overlap, so please let me know if you see any poorly
scheduled talks.
Also, in case you missed it, we’ve extended the deadline for submission
on short talks and demos. We ARE
going to start accepting them starting today, so let’s not wait until Feb
10th (or later!) to have them wrapped up (please).
Using Bjorn’s nifty “Press to load accepted/unresolved data”
button on the program committee page, it’s easy to see the following
tracks need resolution on Long Talks and Panels (http://www.eclipsecon.org/2007/index.php?page=programcommittee/):
- Technology (2 unresolved panels for 1 slot)
- Tools (1 unresolved panel with 1 slot; plus, 3
unresolved long talks)
- Test & Performance (1 unresolved panel with
1 slot)
- SOA (1 unresolved panel with 1 slot; plus, 3
unresolved long talks)
- Java (2 unresolved panels with 1 slot; plus, 2
unresolved long talks)
- RCP (1 unresolved long talk)
Thanks again,
Rich
On 1/15/07 6:00 PM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
IMHO the Harmony talk can go in either Java or OSGi. Modularity in Java
is of increasing importance with at least 4 JSRs active in the area including 2
related to OSGi technologies. In the end I personally feel it
is an important topic to have but well, I'm biased and there are lots of
important topics. I'm sure that neither the presenter or the audience
will particuarly care which track it falls in. :-) Perhaps we
should have a global list of pending talks so we can better allocate any newly
available slots?
Jeff
Philippe P Mulet
<philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 01/15/2007
03:35 AM
Please respond to
Eclipsecon Program Committee list
<eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Eclipsecon Program Committee list
<eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re:
[eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Long Talk and
Panel
final roundup
Ok, I am now done with the Java track (at last).
I accepted
[3812] Java 5.0: A developer experience
[3650] The Fine Art of Reverse Engineering
Declined all but:
[3825] Threads, java.util.concurrent and
Eclipse Jobs: problems and
solutions
[3768] Apache Harmony: Developing the Java
platform with Eclipse
These 2 are on the waiting list, in case extra slots are allocated.
Now, the later [3768] should probably be migrated in the OSGi track, based
on the information below from Tim Ellison. Can someone from the OSGi track
accept it in its queue ?
__________________
Actually, I checked last year's program, and there was already a long talk
on Harmony. Discussing with author (Tim Ellison), it appears that many
things have evolved in Harmony, and the presentation would actually focus
more on focus on the runtime modularity. They have an OSGi manager, that is
embedded in the VM, to support creating multiple bootstrap classloaders for
bundles comprising the JRE itself.
Thus I think for user experience slot, I'd rather accept the
[3812] Java 5.0: A developer
experience
from EMF lead (Ed Merks).
I suspect the Harmony talk would provide more value in the OSGi track, if
some more room is made there (as Richard mentionned in previous note).
So this would mean accepting:
> [3812] Java 5.0: A developer
experience
> [3650] The Fine Art of Reverse
Engineering
And keeping on the waiting list (the good 5th):
> [3825] Threads, java.util.concurrent and Eclipse
Jobs: problems and
solutions
Richard
Gronback
<richard.gronback
@borland.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:
01/11/2007
03:57
[eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
PM
mittee]
Long Talk and Panel
final
roundup
Please
respond to
Eclipsecon
Program
Committee
list
<eclipse.org-ecli
psecon-program-co
mmittee@eclipse.o
rg>
This sounds good to me, Philippe. I'd leave the one you'd consider a good
5th unresolved for now, as we'll likely have room after we finish panels
and
see how short talks turn out (110 slots with 45 submissions so far and 4
days to go).
Thanks,
Rich
On 1/11/07 9:41 AM, "Philippe P Mulet"
<philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For the Java track, I think the suggested choices are not optimal, since
we
> would end up with no talk about user experience.
> Ideally, I think the distribution of Java presentations should look like.
>
> 1. one talk on Java in general
> 2. one talk on JDT
> 3. one talk on user experience with Eclipse Java tools
> 4. one talk on other topic (tooling or dev practices)
>
> We have already accepted submissions for (1) and (2) (see below with
> '====>' prefix).
>
> 1. one talk on Java in general
> =======>[3727] Java 7 Language Features
> [3825] Threads, java.util.concurrent
and Eclipse Jobs: problems and
> solutions
> 2. one talk on Eclipse JDT
> =======>[3786] Unleash the Power of Refactorings in your Products!
> 3. one talk on user experience
> [3768] Apache Harmony: Developing the
Java platform with Eclipse
> [3812] Java 5.0: A developer
experience
> [3888] Story from the Trenches:
Migrating from C++ to Eclipse
> 4. one talk on tooling topic or dev practices
> [3650] The Fine Art of Reverse
Engineering
> [3723] Runtime monitoring and
adaptation of applications from
Eclipse
>
> To me, it looks that we should pick one talk for (3) and one for (4).
> My personal inclination would be respectively: [3768] and [3650].
> 3768 - because Harmony is an interesting exercize which brings together
> Eclipse JDT and OSGi bundles.
> 3650 - not quite sure it is in the right track, but it has the most
votes.
> For 3825, I think it is interesting too, but I suspect it has little to
do
> with Eclipse per se, and we already have one submission about Java in
> general (Java7) which I believe is more important. If we had one more
slot
> in Java track, then yes I would agree with this one, since the speaker is
a
> good one.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
Richard
Gronback
>
<richard.gronback
>
@borland.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:
>
01/08/2007
02:43
[eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
>
AM
mittee]
Long Talk and Panel final
>
roundup
>
>
Please
respond to
> Eclipsecon
>
Program
Committee
>
list
>
<eclipse.org-ecli
>
psecon-program-co
>
mmittee@eclipse.o
>
rg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The slot below makes 4 for OSGi, not 3. The sooner we can
resolve Java,
> OSGi, and RCP tracks the better (tomorrow would be good).
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
>
> On 1/7/07 8:39 PM, "Jeff McAffer"
<Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Rich wrote on 01/07/2007 04:41:43 PM:
>
>> As we’re already past our deadline and soon need to start
reviewing
>
>> short talks and demos, I plan to do the following in order to
> finish
>> up our long talk & panel selections and schedule rooms (speak now
> if
>> you object, or better, resolve your tracks asap :)
>>
>> Panels:
>
>> 1. Reclaim the panel slots from C++, Reporting, RCP, and Tools, as
>> they have no submissions.
>
> In RCP we are still trying to come up
with a panel that touches on
> aspects of the talks that could not be
accepted.
>
>> 2. Allocate one to Fundamentals and accept both of its submissions
> -
>> 3757: What sucks about Eclipse (2 PC votes, 1 community vote) &
>> 3891: How we learned to stop worrying and love Eclipse UA (1 PC
>> vote, 16 community votes)
>> 3. Accept OSGi panel 3900: What does the future hold for OSGi? (2
> PC
>> votes, 4 community votes)
>
> I believe that Peter has been working
on creating an OSGi panel
from
> some rejected talks...
>
>> 4. Accept Web panel 3747: What does Eclipse need to do to become
> the
>> IDE for AJAX?
>> 5. Decline the rest. This gives us 10 panels overall, and frees
up
>
>> some space we may need on Thursday due to a potential room
> conflict.
>>
>> Long Talks:
>
>> 1. In the Java track, accept 3650: The fine art of reverse
>> engineering (3 PC votes, 1 community vote) & 3825: Threads, java.
>> util.concurrent and Eclipse Jobs: problems and solutions (1 PC
> vote,
>> 2 community votes).
>> 2. In the OSGi track, accept 3705: Using OSGi back-end system for
>> the purpose of enterprise management of Eclipse IDEs
>
> It would be great if we could rustle
up an additional slot for
OSGi.
> There is lots of stuff to talk about
and currently only 3 slots
> including the extra one mentioned
here.
>
>> 3. In the RCP track, accept 3628: Rich client platforms: Eclipse
> RCP
>> compared with NetBeans Platform (2 PC votes, 13 community votes);
>> 3816: How to make your RCP application NOT look like Eclipse (1 PC
>> vote, 4 community votes)
>
> The RCP track subcommittee is still
reviewing and debating. We'll
> resolve in the next couple days.
>
>> 4. In the SOA track, accept 3882: STP Components (2 PC votes);
> 3887:
>> From modeling to execution in the enterprise – using BPMN and
BPEL
>> (2 PC votes)
>> 5. In the Web track, accept 3869: XML Development Tools in Eclipse
>> WTP and beyond (1 PC vote, 1 community vote)
>> 6. Decline the rest. This gives us 67 with another one (or two)
>> coming to Mike’s Director’s Choice track
>
> Jeff
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
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-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
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
