Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Some general questions re

[Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Oisin Hurley <oisin.hurley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I find myself strongly inclined to mark OSGi DevCon talks with
> a 0 vote, because that conference program is curated separately,
> and any plus votes I add only means less Eclipse-specific content.
> Does this make me a bad person?

No, it doesn't make you a bad person. I've already sent out the OSGi
DevCon selections and removed them from the "Standard Talk" sheet and
added them to the proper "Accepted" sheets. Sorry for taking so long
to do this.

> Apologies for missing the latest call, but I'm fascinated by the +/-2
> development. Good plan to limit to 5, but it would be interesting to run
> an experiment where the number of +/-1 votes is also limited. Was
> this discussed?

The issue was raised by Ed (and others) that people who represent
"special interest groups" like Modeling and EclipseRT that it was
difficult to vote while making sure a "good" amount of talks from
their group would be in the program. My goal was to have everyone look
at submissions and use their own judgement and experience (i.e., seen
the speaker before) to see if they proposal was going to be crap and
vote. I think this has worked out well this year but had a
disadvantage of potentially alienating certain groups like Modeling.
To alleviate this, everyone was given some +2 votes to throw around to
show that this is a talk that they would really like to see in the
program. I'm fine with this as it keeps with my original goal of
having everyone look at all the talks holistically.

> Lots of names are coming up multiple times - this of course is the
> usual conference game. Did this or any previous committee discuss
> limiting the submissions per person?

I'm going to rely on Donald to call this out when we are getting close
to finalize the program. I recall he ran some queries last year but
maybe that's just my imagination and I'll have to do it.

> On the long talks that weren't in the finals being moved over to the
> short talk list - crunching long talks into short talks is a task that I
> have never seen done well, so I'm a bit uncomfortable with doing
> it in an automated manner, but I wasn't on the call, so opportunity
> missed there. I took the liberty of putting a line on spreadsheet
> to delineate the extended talks that have fallen on hard times.

We won't do it in an automated manner. The goal is to ask speakers
first. The OSGi DevCon folks are doing the same.

Thanks for brining up your issues Oisin, I hope people are comfortable
to do the same if they see anything they don't like.

Now back to my bottle of Beaujolais...

-- 
Cheers,

Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 860 839 2465