My belief was to focus on the high-risk ones as well. The way I thought we would determine that risk would be to email the group asking for Milestone 1 reviews. Since I don't know the authors as well as Ian does, his suggestions work for me. Still, I think we need to do some nagging along the way to ensure that presenters show up with content ready.
Here is the list of tutorials, ordered according to their current
popularity via pre-registration:
1. Creating Rich Client with Eclipse RCP 4.x - It would be great
if John A and others could work with Kai and the Eclipse 4 team to
make sure this is good. This is by far the most popular so we want
to make sure it is successful
2. Mastering OSGi with Ease - Neil does a lot of OSGi training so
I don't think we need to worry. Tom, you might want to reach out
to see if he wants a review.
3. DSL for Java Develoeprs - existing tutorial, no worries
4. Eclipse Developer should know about EMF - As Sven said this is
an existing tutorial so we don't need to worry.
5. Git Tutorial - existing so we don't need to worry.
6. Dynamic server app with EclipseRT - If Gunnar screws up we know
where to find him :-)
7. Hudson tutorial - We need a mentor for this one. This is the
first time they have done a tutorial.
8. Eclipse plugins and RCP apps with Tycho - I don't know Jan and
Tobias. Can someone else comment?
9. Eclipse right thru the Clouds - I don't know the speakers. Can
someone else comment?
10. Jubula Tutorial - This is an existing tutorial so I don't
think we need to worry.
11. Creating tools to simplify your applications development - This
is done by the guys from Obeo. They do a lot of training so I
don't think we need to worry.
12. How to train the JDT dragon - I would suggest we need a mentor
for these guys.
13. Extending Orion - We know where to find John A if he messes up.
14. Introduction to BIRT - I am not worried
15. Hands on with the C/C++ IDE - Andrew has done this before, not
worried.
Summary: We should focus on #1, #7, #8, #9, #12. Thoughts?
On 2/9/2012 7:16 AM, Sven Efftinge wrote:
Maybe we should identify the more risky tutorials and focus
on them.
For instance my colleagues who are giving the Xtext tutorial
have done more than one successful tutorial at previous
EclipseCon.
Although I'll definitely help them during preparation we can
be sure it's going to be very good anyway.
Also the EMF tutorial and the git tutorial have been
successfully presented before.
Other tutorials where PC members (i.e. Gunnar's) are already
involved don't seem to need special attention, too.
What are the tutorials we are not so sure about?
Sven
On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
No one except John and Eric that
is?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM,
Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Given the overwhelming response, I'd say no one?
I think we need to find a lower overhead
solution. What I'd like to see is a mailing list
set up so that we can nag the presenters. Remind
them of the timeline we're expecting. Give us
access to the materials so we can review as a
group. Thoughts on that?
(the fear of bad tutorials is why I hate
tutorials ;)...
That's the
question, how many PC members are
willing to mentor 1 tutorial? That means
reviewing their slides and making sure
they stay on the (more or less) agreed
to schedule?
Having done a tutorial in the past
and shown up with way more content
than the time could sustain, I would
like others to avoid our mistakes.
Then again, I felt we had good content
and good installable units, but it was
just too much for the time we were
given. Especially given that the
presenters and the audience were not
all native English speakers, I would
prefer to give small bites that taste
good than a full belly that tastes
bad. Is that wrong?
To make
this work, we need PC
members to volunteer as
material reviewers
and/or mentors ASAP so I
can email the presenters
early
next week to give them
enough time to get a
decent draft done by
Feb. 20.
I'd prefer not to have
later deadlines if we
can make this timeline
work.
