Kevin,
I agree with your concerns and I completely agree with Bjorn's
comment. It just seems poisonous, as you suggest, to pick on specific
projects to winnow down their allocation. I would observe generally
that top level projects seem to get a good allocation by virtue of
being a top level project. That likely needs to be scrutinized more
closely. I don't think the current allocation represents where
Eclipse is now nor where Eclipse is headed as closely as it ought to...
Kevin McGuire wrote:
> they
have no significant community and aren't even producing quality usable
results upon which to build a community and hence they are over
allocated.
> They get their large allocation by virtue of
being
a top level project, I think.
Yes this was kind of my issue as
well.
I just didn't feel the allocations matched well where the community
was.
Mind you, I would be ok with them matching where we think the
community is going since the conference should be forward looking.
Clearly the E4 category is with that in mind, but does it explain
the other allocations?
If the allocations don't match where
the real activity is, then its unlikely we can get quality content to
fill
them, since the people, work, energy, innovation, etc. just aren't
there
to produce the material. Finally, there is a real concern that such
a failure sends a bad signal on what Eclipse is (both in focus and
quality).
I don't want to point to any
projects
in particular since that has potential to degenerate into a "who likes
who best" kind of negative spiral. I mean really, I love you
all! (Just not equally <g>). Thus the default it seems is we
proceed as is, since that's the least controversial.
But really, do people honestly feel these allocations represent what
Eclipse
is about? What we want people to take away, think about? Others
on this list have a more global view then I. If people say, "Yes
they do match" then my concern will go away.
Kevin
Bjorn,
I think some areas, to pick on TPTP for example, are just not
interesting,
i.e., they have no significant community and aren't even producing
quality
usable results upon which to build a community and hence they are over
allocated. They get their large allocation by virtue of being a
top level project, I think. Picking on these things seems kind of
negative, and perhaps futile. :-P The question will indeed be what
do "we" want to emphasize and I expect different folks to differ
wildly on that...
I do of course see your point though!
I hope you had a great ride!!
Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
Ed,
Wrong answer :-)
Ed Merks wrote:
I suppose that for any of these things, if the slots
are
really over allocated, that will become clear by the number of quality
submissions; unused slots will be obviously redistributed...
Jeff said it best last year, but in essence: the
distribution
of slots is based what we want the conference to be, not what the set
of
submissions happens to be. I.e., just because lots of people want to
talk
about IDEs for COBOL doesn't mean that we want to have lots of talks
about
COBOL, n'est pas? If the submission quality is low in an area we want
to
emphasize, we have to step out and recruit good talks for that area.
- Bjorn
--
[end of message]
_______________________________________________
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
|
