Sure! But representation of Modeling within the committee is close to not existent.On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Schaefer, Doug wrote: I’m not certain that’s true. The Eclipse community is pretty huge outside of Modeling ;). From: eclipsecon-na-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipsecon-na-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sven Efftinge
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Eclipsecon NA program committee discussions
Subject: Re: [eclipsecon-na-program-committee] Tutorials We already have less modeling talks than were initially planned (20 were planned we have 15). The reason why they are voted so low and little is merely because 'modeling' is not as well represented in the PC as it is in the community. On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Schaefer, Doug wrote:
These were added to ensure we had sufficient content for the Modeling track. Whether that’s the right thing to do is a valid question. It appears we have nine slots for tutorials. I have marked 9 with ‘in1’ as a strawman. We also have three more standard talks to drop to fit into 63. I’m open to ideas. I’m sure we’ll have a lot to debate during today’s meeting. Reminder that it is at 12 eastern. Same number and I’ll send out a webex. I’m hoping that Wed will be our last call. We should have everything pinned by then. Hopefully J. _______________________________________________ eclipsecon-na-program-committee mailing list eclipsecon-na-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipsecon-na-program-committee _______________________________________________ eclipsecon-na-program-committee mailing list eclipsecon-na-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxxhttp://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipsecon-na-program-committee
|
