I like it. But I also like “Eclipse plug-in mashups” so it’s
not all about tools.
From: Scott Rosenbaum [mailto:scottr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:46 PM
To: Tim Wagner
Cc: Richard Gronback; eclipse.org-pmc-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx; Bjorn
Freeman-Benson; Ian Skerrett; Gaff, Doug; Ed Merks
Subject: Re: EclipseCon '07 planning
All,
I spent some time thinking about what to call a multi-use track. I have
been kind of stumped too. How does Eclipse Tool Mashups sound? I
know that mashup is normally associated with Web 2.0, world but I think that it
cuts to the chase of what we would like to see.
Thoughts?
Scott
Tim Wagner wrote:
A few comments:
- Keynotes:
Ironically, no one wants to hear anything related to Eclipse ;-). I
thought a “competition” talk from Sun would be good, but the advice from
the Board last year was to not do that. Would be nice to have someone
other than an old white male at some point. Funny is good, provocative is
good, and interesting is good. The google infrastructure talk two years
ago went over well; might be nice to get them back in and talk about how
they view middleware, open source, and the industry in general. Everyone
loves NASA talks, too.
- Thanks for the
xtra tutorial for WTP.
- Like Scott’s
multi-use track rec, but not sure what to call it or exactly how to drive
content there.
- Vertical merge
seems like a good idea, but beyond that I don’t have a lot of advice on
how to handle that track.
- Agree that a
tools track per se is probably not needed and is a little confusing
relative to the naming convention.
- Agree that
scripting could go into tech, unless we wind up with a pile of scripting
talks.
Thanks, Tim!
I’ve attached an updated spreadsheet with some changes based on this and other
feedback. Also, there is a list of potential keynotes on the second
sheet. Let me know if you need a format other than Excel.
In general, I have done and would like feedback on:
- Removed the Linux track, as it
seems odd to me as well. Objections?
- Renamed the tracks with more
“friendly” names, more in line with what we did for categories in Callisto
- Increased the WTP tutorial # ;)
- Reduced the #s on the Business
track
- Added an RCP track
- Regarding “holdbacks”: Mike has
2 reserved slots that he’s happy to make transparent
- Scott made a good recommendation
(imo) to have tracks that encourage multiple project use, so end-to-end
solution presentations/demos/tutorials: thoughts? What to name
it?
- Combined Heath and Automotive
into “Industry Verticals” track... Thoughts in this track in general?
- From Tools, it seems only COBOL
and GEF are left, as I can see VE falling into the ‘Java Development’
track, PHP falling into the ‘Web Development’ track, and C/C++ having its
own track... Or, to leave all in the ‘Tools’ category, whose name doesn’t fit
with the rest of the ‘friendly’ track names?
- Should there be an ‘Eclipse
Development’ track, to focus on general extensibility/PDE?
- Scripting track... Necessary?
Can it be part of the Technology track?
- DSDP and Mobile tracks combined
into ‘Mobile and Embedded’ track
As soon as we get representatives from each track, I’ll create a mailing list
to avoid blasting all of the PMC leads.
Thanks,
Rich
On 7/18/06 11:34 AM, "Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Rich, etc.
The WTP PMC discussed the planning for EclipseCon ’07 last week. In general, we
understand and agree with the desire to engage the projects as domain experts.
We had one concern w.r.t. WTP and several questions of a general nature:
· WTP has one fewer tutorial
slot than we had last year; is there a way to add another one in?
· Last year the program
committee had difficulty in identifying business tutorial topics/interest;
perhaps this is an area from which to create more project tutorial slots?
· “Linux” seemed like an odd
category; is there more to this than just one of several platforms on which
Eclipse runs? Who represents “Linux” as a domain area?
· No explicit RCP allocation –
is that intentional?
· Finally, we wanted to
request transparency on “holdbacks” – if the EMO is reserving certain slots to
fill using another process, the program committee should be open about that
aspect.
Thanks, and looking forward to working with you on EC07.
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
|
