[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] submission categories need to be set
|
Hi Oisin -- interesting ideas. If you've seen the minutes from
Friday's call, you'll see that we discussed the 2010 "Talk Tag problem."
The committee decided to go ahead and use the three "theme" groups you
created last year but with no Talk Tags at all -- at least that was
the thought on Friday. There is still time to change that before
submissions open if your suggestions spark more discussion. The goal
is to open on Tuesday, Oct. 12, but that can be a few days later if
necessary.
The sub sys has PC tags that can be defined at any time. These are
internal and can be edited by anyone with the role of "committee
chair" in the sub sys.
Anne Jacko
Eclipse Foundation
503-784-3788 (cell)
Join us at Eclipse Summit Europe!
http://www.eclipsecon.org/summiteurope2010/
On Oct 9, 2010, at 2:15 AM, Oisin Hurley wrote:
Just to pique some discussion...
So last year we had these broad category buckets and then tagging
within those buckets. A number of issues ensued, but IIRC they were
very much about insufficient communication regarding the tags and
their usage by submitters, and the fact that the tag space was shared
by submitters and by reviewers, so that changes by reviewers were
available to view by submitters.
There was feedback that relating the talk to a project makes it
easier
for attendees to navigate the conference. But there are so many
different projects...
One proposal would be to stick with last year's approach, except to
make sure that there is a second set of tags that the committee can
edit for the purposes of review that are not visible to all.
A second proposal would be to come up with a number of tracks that
we can fill, such as Eclipse Runtime, Eclipse Language Tools, Eclipse
Modeling Tools, Eclipse Enterprise Tools, and then have choice boxes
in each for project/sub-project relevance which can be used in a
search.
A third proposal would be to extend the second proposal with a
collection of "presentation intent" flags, e.g. planning, feature
exposition, project proposal, project information, etc.
Of course a mix of all of the above would be interesting, although
probably too detailed. I think the target we have to hit is to allow
presenters fairly accurately connect the intent of their talks to the
audience, and allow the potential audience a search capability to
allow them to find the presentations that are most relevant to them
--oh
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
