Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Category Revisions

[Peter Kriens <peter.kriens@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

On 19 sep 2008, at 21:50, Scott Rosenbaum wrote:

> I agree that all of the category assignments are a little suspect.   
> Do you favor those communities that are the most active?  Or do you  
> give the nod to communities that are struggling to move forward?
>
> One of the ideas of having the un-allocated talks was that there  
> would be committee consensus on more of the talks.  If a category  
> gets extra talks it would be based on having the best possible talk  
> submissions, as voted by the committee.  This year we have 20% of  
> the time un-allocated.  (9 Longs, 1 Main Stage, 10 Tutorials).
> If you all feel that the balance is really out of whack, then I  
> would propose taking one long talk from each of the category and put  
> them into the un-allocated bucket.  Taking away one long talk from  
> each category would give us (27 Longs, 1 Main Stage, 10 Tutorials)  
> in un-allocated.  The problem with this approach is we would have to  
> reach consensus on 38 slots which would take a *lot *more work.
> That is not the only solution, I am open to any proposals, but my  
> vote would be to leave things as they are.  Let me know what you  
> think.
> +1 to accept the categories as they are
> -1 to try and change the allocations to a better balance.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Schaefer, Doug wrote:
> > I knew that would get an LOL out of Mike ;)
> > Well, the valley is also a hotbed of embedded and Embedded Systems  
> > Conference can attest to. And we actually get good attendence to  
> > Eclipse talks there, when we can get them. I think we can get these  
> > guys to come to EclipseCon if we have a good program for them. But  
> > I guess that's our job to figure out.
> > Doug.
> >
> >     
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >    *From:*
> >    eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >    [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > ]
> >    *On Behalf Of *Mike Milinkovich
> >    *Sent:* Monday, September 15, 2008 10:32 AM
> >    *To:* 'Eclipsecon Program Committee list'
> >    *Subject:* RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Category
> >    Revisions
> >
> >    *| *Where is Eclipse headed? I'd bet that's harder to answer than
> >    you think, and I'm not sure there's any one individual who would
> >    know, except for maybe Mike.
> >
> >
> >    I literally LOL'd on that one. I have guesses on where it's
> >    heading. Perhaps my guesses are a little better informed than
> >    yours, but they're still guesses.
> >
> >
> >    Communities don't head in a particular direction. They evolve.
> >    Evolution is hard to predict J
> >
> >
> >    *|* Interestingly enough, I find ESE has a much higher embedded
> >    attendance percentage than EclipseCon. How does that happen?  
> > Culture?
> >
> >    *|* Demographics? Awesome recruiting by Ralph?
> >
> >
> >    It is partially location and demographics. The Stuttgart area is
> >    very automotive-driven. My observation is also that small software
> >    companies in Europe are much more likely to be focused on systems
> >    engineering than enterprise. I think this is partially because of
> >    the large number of systems engineering companies in Europe.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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