| RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Long talk #204 is notavailable |
|
Then 40 it is. Sri, would you mind
checking with the submitters of 40? (I can’t verify who they are, since
canuck seems to be down again.) From:
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul M Vanderlei Good thing I checked. Nick Edgar has
politely DECLINED to present #204. :-P Paul VanderLei Embedded Java Enablement Team 1750 Ridgemoor SE 616.975.1985 pvlei@xxxxxxxxxx "I don't see architecture coming from
you." -Jerry Seinfeld Tuesday,
January 31, 2006 9:46 AM That’s a majority. Paul, would you
call Nick and check? If he can do it, let’s go with that (and let me know
so I can begin the admin work with From:
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul M Vanderlei Looks like the voting is a landslide,
which makes me ask.....Has anyone double-checked with Nick that he is still
willing to do this talk? I would be willing to do that today, once Tim declares
that 204 is in fact the selection. Paul VanderLei Embedded Java Enablement Team 1750 Ridgemoor SE 616.975.1985 pvlei@xxxxxxxxxx "I don't see architecture coming from
you." -Jerry Seinfeld Tuesday,
January 31, 2006 1:57 AM I’ve heard only support for 40 and 204, so let’s
confine it to those two. Maher,Gunnar, MikeT, and Paul have
“pre-voted” for 204 and I’m assume Sri is voting for 40. Would others please let me know their preference, and
I’ll declare the result Tuesday. As a reminder, 40 was the next on our short list; 204 was a
high priority RCP track recommendation that we missed due to some
miscommunication about the original track preferences. If you feel
reconsidering 204 is invalid given our voting process, then simply vote for 40. |