Re: [technology-pmc] FW: ESE 2010: 1701 - Introduction to Sapphire has b

["Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 

On more transparent selection process. Ideally, as much of the selection
debate should be carried out in the open. I understand that it is more work,
but we don't let projects get away with having closed discussions, why
should the program committee be any different? 

> > Besides the lack of transparency, what troubles me is that the
conference
> > focus isn't designed to cover the Eclipse ecosystem as a whole, but is
> > rather heavily slanted towards hot and trendy topics of today.
> 
> Oh, I don't that this is the case. I had a quick look minutes ago and
> the accepted submissions in the runtime space so far look like a good
> mixture.

I was largely referring to emerging technologies not covered by the main
topics. The "Runtime" space is itself hot and trendy, so it got its own
category and was then able to look after its own areas.

It strikes me as being something that we as Technology Project PMC should be
looking after. Was there any representation on PC this year looking after
emerging technologies?

- Konstantin


-----Original Message-----
From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gunnar Wagenknecht
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:33 PM
To: Technology PMC
Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] FW: ESE 2010: 1701 - Introduction to Sapphire
has been declined

Am 13.09.2010 21:16, schrieb Konstantin Komissarchik:
> It was proposed as a long talk. My expectation is that the PC would try to
> fill that and if not possible would work with proposers to see if the talk
> can be compressed into a shorter time slot. That has been commonplace in
> prior conferences.

That was my understanding as well. From looking at a few submissions, it
appears that the PC at least successfully converted a few from long to
short. I think that at some point, they just run out of short slots as well.

> The lack of transparency is very troubling to me as well. I would expect
> more conversation to be taking place between PCs and submitters. My other
> talk in the technology space (that one on showing broad applicability of
> project facets) was also rejected. That was a short talk. Also no
comments.

It looks like a general procedure that happened. I can understand the
huge amount of work involved in answering every single submission.

However, I do remember that it was better at some point when we used a
'customized' Bugzilla version. It allowed to do public voting by PC
members which also allowed to put a comment in. All submissions has to
be voted anyway so the amount of extra work wouldn't be that much. I
know it because I participated in the PC back that time.

> Besides the lack of transparency, what troubles me is that the conference
> focus isn't designed to cover the Eclipse ecosystem as a whole, but is
> rather heavily slanted towards hot and trendy topics of today.

Oh, I don't that this is the case. I had a quick look minutes ago and
the accepted submissions in the runtime space so far look like a good
mixture.

-Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://wagenknecht.org/
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc