Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Little reminder 2

Le 06/09/2011 14:08, Bernd Kolb a écrit :
Hi Mariot,

I think it is not changing rules, as I pointed that out as well for the first round. Back then I said, that people should raise their hand if they had to review their own talk

OK I missed that point at the first round, I did not review any talk I submitted, but did review, 2 talks I think, written by one of my colleague.

Regarding the modeling stuff. I agree with you there in theory. OTOH I think the others in the program committee should be able to judge the talk as well (maybe not the full spectrum) If there are problems with specific talks, we can reconsider them, as we currently do with cdo 3d. For this we have our regular calls where we can discuss issues like that. Here a PC member can explain why he thinks that the talk is important for the program. If we end up with a program where it is noticeable that somebody from company X was in the PC because most of their talks were accepted (and believe me, people will notice!) this will shed a bad light on the whole PC as well as the conference. (This is why I did not vote on the itemis talks...) Anyway. In the end I hope that we are all professional enough to not judge a talk better if it is coming from our own company.

OK I understand your point of view and agree.
So I have modified the speadsheet to remove my vote on any submission from someone of my company.


2011/9/6 Mariot Chauvin <mariot.chauvin@xxxxxxx>
I totally agree with the principle in theory, but I have two concerns in our case :

  • Changing rules between rounds. I don't think it's fair to change rules between rounds. Why did we not apply this rule at the first round ?
  • Relevance of votes for Modeling track. I am modeling expert, and I think my point of view on a modeling submission is well advised. But as I am working in modeling specialized company, majority of talks submitted by my colleagues are in this domain. This rule leads me to not review talks on which my vote will be the most relevant.
    To explain my fears, following are 3 submissions we did not select in the first round, but that from my modeling point of view should definitively have been in the final program :

             I respect your opinions and decisions to not select them, and I am not trying to include them again.

So again I will accept the decision about this rule, and I understand its reason, I just fear that with the way we proceed we will not have the best talks/content for each track.



Le 06/09/2011 10:25, Simon Kaufmann a écrit :

Didn't vote for mine anyway. Apart from that, I now also removed my votes on colleagues of mine (at least all I could figure out - I hope I didn't miss anyone...). Although my votes were pretty close to the averages, I fully support the fairness aspect of it. 


2011/9/5 Benjamin Cabé <bcabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I totally agree with that. It sounds to me much more fair if we don't vote for ourselves, nor our colleagues.
Thanks for bringing the point, Christian.

Ben –

Benjamin Cabé ::  Open Source Community Manager


SIERRA WIRELESS :: AirVantage Business Unit

Main  +33 5 61 00 52 90  ::  Direct  +33 5 61 00 06 41  ::  Fax  +33 5 61 00 51 46

Lake Park  ::  Zac de l'Hers - Allée du Lac - BP 87216 :: 31672 Labège Cedex, France


BCabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ::



This message and any attachments (the "Message") are confidential and intended solely

for the addressees. Any unauthorized modification, edition, use or dissemination is prohibited.

Neither Sierra Wireless nor any of its subsidiaries shall be liable for the Message if altered,

changed, falsified or edited, diffused without authorization.

De : "Campo, Christian" <Christian.Campo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Répondre à : Eclipsecon Program Committee list <>
Date : Mon, 5 Sep 2011 14:10:48 -0700
À : Eclipsecon Program Committee list <>
Objet : Re: [] Little reminder 2

Hi (me again),

I remember from the first call that Bernd mentioned something along the lines that he expects people to not vote for their own talks. That was in the first round where we were able to avoid these conflicts. 

Now in the second round, we were supposed to give points for each talk. My personal understanding is that you should leave a voting cell just empty (not "0" and not "1") if its either your own talk or a talk from your collegue. Not sure if everyone agrees here ?? If everyone does then there are still some votes that need to be "cleaned" up in that sense. Good content will make its way into the program even if we have only 5 votes for a cerain row.

just my 2 cents here……


Am 05.09.2011 um 17:32 schrieb Campo, Christian:

I think every speaker should leave voting column for their own talks empty right ? 

So please keep that in mind (I saw a few "1" votes where people voted for themselves)


Am 05.09.2011 um 14:09 schrieb Campo, Christian:

me tooo

Am 05.09.2011 um 09:08 schrieb Alexander Neumann:


I will do the reviews this afternoon.



Am 05.09.2011 09:07, schrieb Ralph Mueller:
Hallo Bernd -

ich werde mich in dieser Runde nicht beteiligen.

Grund: Es sollte ab hier das unabhängige Programm Kommittee tagen, ohne die Eclipse Foundation.


Regards / Liebe Grüsse,  

Ralph Mueller
Director, Eclipse Foundation

Mobile: +49 177 449 0460
Office: +49 6251 789545

Get ready for Eclipse Con Europe 2011

Am 03.09.2011 um 19:25 schrieb Bernd Kolb:


here hopefully the last reminder from my side: Please make sure to review the submissions until Tuesday noon.

Thx and a nice weekend!
_______________________________________________ mailing list

_______________________________________________ mailing list


heise Developer Channel / iX 

Karl-Wiechert-Allee 10, 30625 Hannover

* +49 6221 1483-80 * f: -99

-- Gesetzliche Mindestanforderung an geschäftliche E-Mails:

Heise Zeitschriften Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hannover HRA 26709
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin:
Heise Zeitschriften Verlag Geschäftsführung GmbH
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 60190
Geschäftsführer: Ansgar Heise, Steven P. Steinkraus, Dr. Alfons Schräder

compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main

Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
Ust-Ident.-Nr: DE207665352


_______________________________________________ mailing list

_______________________________________________ mailing list

_______________________________________________ mailing list

_______________________________________________ mailing list

Back to the top