Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Choosing your talks

[Oisin Hurley <oisin.hurley@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David,
I understand your situation :)   We will be meeting on the 30th.

This reviewing business is a lot more fun than it was in the past :)

> I see "Tools" as being the problem case ... seems many people tacked that on to many talks (nearly all we do is Tools, right?) and very few were only "Tools", so plenty of opportunity for "cross review" there.
> If anyone sees one of those in your category and think it really strongly belongs in your category (tag), I assume the right thing to do is remove it from "Tools"? right?

Exactly. Try to cut it down to TWO tags if you can.  Make sure
to have a public comment on the fact, so that you can have a
discussion with the submitters, eg.

https://www.eclipsecon.org/submissions/2010/view_talk.php?id=1326

where I'm asking the author to cut down the tags to the two
most relevant.

> Let me further express my ignorance ... were there any definitions of these tags given? Or just sort of left up to the submitter to define from common meanings? (not sure it matters,
> just wondering if there's a "criteria" for us (re)moving tags?)

As far as I can see, we haven't given a paragraph or two of hints
on the tag to the submitters. Was this a bit cruel? Maybe - but some
of the tags are adequately self-descriptive, I think. The criterion we
have is the abstract to which we must apply our own judgement - if
that's not enough we need to have a discussion with the author. It's
not an easy exercise :)

 cheers
   --oh