[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
|
I don't think we're changing the process, but rather trying to resolve the
anticipated excess of quality submissions with the available allocations.
You're just faster than the rest of us ;)
And I agree, we'll never make everyone happy. But, we should pay attention
to the overall program as well, to avoid what Jeff referred to as "18
parallel conferences."
Best,
Rich
On 11/14/06 11:36 AM, "jograham@xxxxxxxxxx" <jograham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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, I¹m 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, there¹s a book for this one). I know you¹re 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 there¹s Web Development. Tim has already expressed the need for
> more slots as well, but it looks from the above that there¹s 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:
>>
>> 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-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
