[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
|
Here's the way I've been operating, which I presume is within the ground
rules we set when the committee was formed:
1. Allocated a number of slots. Received the same number of short tutorial
proposals, all of which I believe are good coverage of DTP (received
community comments on 1 of these). Said so in my comments on the proposals,
and marked as accepted after the deadline passed.
2. If more proposals than slots available arrive (as I expect for the DTP
long talks), then I'd wait for community comments and ask the rest of the
DTP PMC to add votes (of course, anyone else who wants to comment/vote is
welcome). Based on all of the feedback (without the votes being strictly
binding), I'd make selections.
Now, with regard to our community conscience, I'd claim that someone is
always going to be unhappy, no matter how we do this. They might even write
alarmist blogs and cause a big stir. :-)
Seriously though, I think EclipseCon 2007 has a system in place, and the
community at large has been planning based on it (at least I know the DTP
community has). I think it would be far more disruptive to start changing
the system now. Rather, let's collect feedback about the process -- both
positive and negative -- as input to future EclipseCon programs.
Regards,
John Graham
Eclipse Data Tools Platform PMC Chair
Staff Software Engineer, Sybase, Inc.
http://dataplat.blogspot.com/
Richard Gronback
<richard.gronback
@borland.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:
11/14/2006 10:52 [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>
Well, it seems Data Tooling is locked up: 3 submissions for 3 slots, all
are already ACCEPTED.
C/C++ has 4 submissions and 2 slots.
Mashup has 2 submissions and 3 slots, so we have a Short Tutorial to spare.
Also, I’m not sure we need both 3636 (Enterprise Team Development with
Maven and Eclipse) in Mashup, along with 3639 (Team Collaboration with
Eclipse and Maven) in Fundamentals. Thoughts?
Fundamentals has the 2 Long Tutorials submitted (below) with only 1
allocation. There is a Short Tutorial alternative (3583) to the PDE Build
Long Tutorial submission. Also, 3674 mentions they can switch to a short
(plus, there’s a book for this one). I know you’re a fan of the Long
Tutorial, but it seems we can fit nearly all into the schedule if we
convert the long to shorts, and use the Maven submission in Mashup.
The Java track now has 6 short submissions for 1 long and 2 short
allocations, which Philippe has already asked about converting to 5 shorts.
Not much play here.
Mobile and Embedded has 4 short submissions for 3 slots, so again if the
content looks good to Doug, not much play.
Modeling has 2 long submissions for 1 slot, and 5 short submissions for 2
slots. Definitely no play here.
OSGi has 5 long submissions for 1 slot, and 2 short submissions for its 2
slots. I doubt Peter will find a slot to contribute.
Rich Client has 2 long submissions (below) for 1 allocation, and 5 short
submissions for 3 slots. One of the longs has a short alternative.
Reporting and Test & Performance each have the exact number of submissions
for their allocations. Are these looking good for acceptance?
SOA Development has 2 short submissions for their 2 short allocation.
Technology and Scripting has 5 short submissions and 3 slots. Bjorn has
voted on 2 already.
Tools has 4 short submissions with 3 slots, and 3 with PC member votes.
And then there’s Web Development. Tim has already expressed the need for
more slots as well, but it looks from the above that there’s only a short
tutorial slot from Mashup up for grabs; that is, unless others on this list
chime in soon.
Considering what our public conscience has to say (
http://wassim-melhem.blogspot.com/2006/11/elephant-in-room.html) we should
also consider the point regarding the balance of our tracks based on
expected popularity. Are we missing the mark?
Thanks,
Rich
On 11/13/06 9:43 PM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Long tutorials are a problem it seems. While there aren't
necessarily alot of proposals in some of the tracks, the propsoals
are quite attractive. Some examples,
In the Fundamentals track there are two long tutorials that IMHO are
both of significant interest
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3635 PDE
Build and build clinic
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3674
Building Commercial-Quality Eclipse Plug-Ins
Similarly, there are two particularly interesting long tutorial
proposals in the RCP track
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3585 RCP
Development Using the Workbench and JFace
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3667
Developing Eclipse Rich-Client Applications
And in the OSGi Track there are several long tutorial proposals but
in particular
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3630
Building Service Oriented Bundle Architectures
http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3607
Building Server-Side Eclipse based web applications
So with the lack of long slots, I am torn as to how to choose. In
the OSGi track it the presenters of 3607 may be willing to split into
two shorts, one for basic technology and another for more advanced
uses. That's just me smokin' up ideas. For the others, these kinds
of topics really do press for full day, hands on work.
Thoughts?
Jeff
"Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/13/2006 08:40 PM
Please respond to
Eclipsecon Program Committee list
<eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"Eclipsecon Program Committee list"
<eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
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:
>
> I’ve 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 we’d 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 we’d 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
