[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
|
I could easily fill more short tutorial slots if someone wants to donate them - with AJAX, JSF, and JPA sub-projects all incubating in WTP plus our existing technologies, we have 7 strong abstracts that could all easily merit inclusion.
I can also supply 2 long tutorials (i.e., 1 additional over my allotted one) if there is an opportunity to do so.
-----Original Message-----
From: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Gronback
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:24 PM
To: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
Are there any other slots we'd like to reallocate? Do we all have
interesting/valuable content to fill our currently allocated slots? If not,
can they be contributed to another track? Which tracks (really) need
additional slots?
Thanks,
Rich
On 11/13/06 4:06 PM, "Philippe P Mulet" <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> About the Java track, I agree we should look at converting the long slot
> into 3 short ones. The nice thing about short tutorials is that you may
> attend several in one day.
> Also, I do not see any submission on some JDT fundamentals. I think someone
> on the JDT team should submit one, even if a bit late.
> This extra contribution could be swallowed by the long->short conversion.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer
> <Jeff_McAffer@ca.
> ibm.com> To
> Sent by: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
> eclipse.org-eclip <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
> secon-program-com mittee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> mittee-bounces@ec cc
> lipse.org
> Subject
> Re:
> 11/11/2006 04:31 [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
> AM mittee] Re: long tutorials
>
>
> Please respond to
> Eclipsecon
> Program Committee
> list
> <eclipse.org-ecli
> psecon-program-co
> mmittee@eclipse.o
> rg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There seems to be a lack of long tutorial slots. Actually I could have
> sworn that there were 9 but now I see there is only 8?! Perhaps one got
> converted? I am reluctant to convert such a scarce and valuable resource.
> Swapping perhaps but conversion is a challenge IMHO. Several tracks would
> benefit from having additional long slots. I wouldn't begin to know how to
> allocate since we all have our own biases.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> Richard Gronback
> <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: To
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-comm Eclipsecon Program Committee
> ittee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx list
> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
> -committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 11/10/2006 06:29 PM cc
>
> Subject
> Please respond to Re:
> Eclipsecon Program Committee list [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-co -committee] Re: long tutorials
> mmittee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking at the Java track, it seems with 0 long and 5 short submissions (1
> long and 2 short allocations), Philippe may want to convert its 1 long into
> 3 shorts as well? (although, 3639 appears to be more of a Fundamental
> topic)
>
> OSGi and Web Development appear to be the most popular, in terms of
> submissions and the need for additional allocations.
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
>
> On 11/10/06 3:46 PM, "Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> I¹ve updated the submission page to reflect this change (2 Mashup Long
> tutorials -> 1 RCP Long Tutorial + 3 Mashup Short Tutorials).
>
> Best,
> Rich
>
>
> On 11/10/06 10:25 AM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <zx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sure, I share this sentiment.
>
> I would also consider doing some slight triage on
> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3660 to move this over
> to Mashup which needs a bit more love.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ---
> Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | +1 860 839 2465
>
> (Embedded image moved to file: pic05698.gif)Richard Gronback ---11/10/2006
> 09:14:53 AM---Sorry, I guess I had it in my mind that we¹d already
> allocated one of the Mashup long tutorials to RCP ;)
>
> From:Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc:"'Bjorn Freeman-Benson'" <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Donald
> Smith <donald.smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Doug Gaff'" <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'John
> Graham'" <jograham@xxxxxxxxxx>, John Duimovich <John_Duimovich@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> "'Oisin Hurley'" <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>, Peter Kriens <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxxx>,
> "'Philippe P Mulet'" <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Rosenbaum
> <scottr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Doddapaneni, Srinivas P'"
> <srinivas.p.doddapaneni@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Wagner'" <twagner@xxxxxxx>, Chris
> Aniszczyk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Date:11/10/2006 09:14 AM
> Subject:Re: long tutorials
>
>
> Sorry, I guess I had it in my mind that we¹d already allocated one of the
> Mashup long tutorials to RCP ;)
>
> +1 on the recommendation to re-allocate 1 long tutorial to RCP from Mashup
> and split the remaining long into 3 shorts. Chris?
>
> - Rich
>
>
> On 11/10/06 8:34 AM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/10/2006
> 08:16:46 AM:
>> Bjorn, can you please help us get a mailing list set up?
>
> +1
>
>> It sounds like Jeff is wishing there were a day-long RCP tutorial, but
>> cannot find someone to submit one (?). Of course, we're free to shift
>> allocations in order to get the best program, so whatever agreements you
>> come up with is fine, provided we fit our room constraints.
>
> No, the opposite. I have two long tutorial submissions and no slots to put
> them in.
>
>> Does anyone have a long tutorial they think might be more appropriate for
>> the Mashup long tutorial, or should we split this into 3 short tutorials?
> I
>> was considering asking the submitters of
>> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627
> <http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627> to add a
> connection
>> to WTP/DTP/etc. in order to make it more of a true (cross-top-level)
> mashup.
>
> I think you should donate that slot to the RCP track :-)
>
>> Something Jeff asked about yesterday was the PC Voting, which I agree
> should
>> be open to all PC members, not just recognized by reps from their
> respective
>> tracks. For most tracks, having a single PC rep vote and then a status
>> change for acceptance doesn't make sense. Bjorn, can we make this change
>> and therefore make the PC votes more general?
>
> +1 This would allow the PC to operate in a more cohesive way.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard C. Gronback
> Borland Software Corporation
> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 860 227 9215_______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
> tee
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
> tee
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
> tee
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
