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.
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.
Cheers,
Mariot
Le 06/09/2011 10:25, Simon Kaufmann a écrit :
+1
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.
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……
christian
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)
christian
Am 05.09.2011
um 14:09 schrieb
Campo, Christian:
me tooo
Am
05.09.2011 um
09:08 schrieb
Alexander
Neumann:
Hi,
I will do the
reviews this
afternoon.
Best,
Alexander
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.
