[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: Re[2]: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
|
Yes, you can just pick. Other PC members should have voted for those they
felt were worth having in the program, if that helps ;)
The one short tutorial slot from Mashup is still up for grabs. There is a
suggestion to donate it to Fundamentals, but it's not been decided (waiting
on Scott :).
Do you have a specific submission in mind that the Mashup team should
consider?
Thanks,
Rich
On 11/14/06 6:55 PM, "Peter Kriens" <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> RG> OSGi has 5 long submissions for 1 slot, and 2 short submissions
> RG> for its 2 slots. I doubt Peter will find a slot to contribute.
> I am not sure I follow?
>
> I am a bit confused (normal state of mind though). Can I just pick?
> Any volunteers that want to help me to handle the fire I will
> undoubtedly get from the bloggers? :-)
>
> There was a discussion about donating a slot to the OSGi track?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter Kriens
>
>
>
> RG>
> RG> Well, it seems Data Tooling is locked up: 3 submissions for 3 slots, all
> are already ACCEPTED.
> RG>
> RG> C/C++ has 4 submissions and 2 slots.
> RG>
> RG> Mashup has 2 submissions and 3 slots, so we have a Short
> RG> Tutorial to spare. Also, I¹m not sure we need both 3636
> RG> (Enterprise Team Development with Maven and Eclipse) in Mashup,
> RG> along with 3639 (Team Collaboration with Eclipse and Maven) in
> Fundamentals. Thoughts?
> RG>
> RG> Fundamentals has the 2 Long Tutorials submitted (below) with
> RG> only 1 allocation. There is a Short Tutorial alternative (3583)
> RG> to the PDE Build Long Tutorial submission. Also, 3674 mentions
> RG> they can switch to a short (plus, there¹s a book for this one). I
> RG> know you¹re a fan of the Long Tutorial, but it seems we can fit
> RG> nearly all into the schedule if we convert the long to shorts, and
> RG> use the Maven submission in Mashup.
> RG>
> RG> The Java track now has 6 short submissions for 1 long and 2
> RG> short allocations, which Philippe has already asked about
> RG> converting to 5 shorts. Not much play here.
> RG>
> RG> Mobile and Embedded has 4 short submissions for 3 slots, so
> RG> again if the content looks good to Doug, not much play.
> RG>
> RG> Modeling has 2 long submissions for 1 slot, and 5 short
> RG> submissions for 2 slots. Definitely no play here.
> RG>
> RG> OSGi has 5 long submissions for 1 slot, and 2 short submissions
> RG> for its 2 slots. I doubt Peter will find a slot to contribute.
> RG>
> RG> Rich Client has 2 long submissions (below) for 1 allocation, and
> RG> 5 short submissions for 3 slots. One of the longs has a short
> alternative.
> RG>
> RG> Reporting and Test & Performance each have the exact number of
> RG> submissions for their allocations. Are these looking good for acceptance?
> RG>
> RG> SOA Development has 2 short submissions for their 2 short allocation.
> RG>
> RG> Technology and Scripting has 5 short submissions and 3 slots. Bjorn has
> voted on 2 already.
> RG>
> RG> Tools has 4 short submissions with 3 slots, and 3 with PC member votes.
> RG>
> RG> And then there¹s Web Development. Tim has already expressed the
> RG> need for more slots as well, but it looks from the above that
> RG> there¹s only a short tutorial slot from Mashup up for grabs; that
> RG> is, unless others on this list chime in soon.
> RG>
> RG> Considering what our public conscience has to say
> RG> (http://wassim-melhem.blogspot.com/2006/11/elephant-in-room.html)
> RG> we should also consider the point regarding the balance of our
> RG> tracks based on expected popularity. Are we missing the mark?
> RG>
> RG> Thanks,
> RG> Rich
> RG>
> RG>
> RG> On 11/13/06 9:43 PM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> RG>
> RG>
>
> RG> Long tutorials are a problem it seems. While there aren't
> RG> necessarily alot of proposals in some of the tracks, the propsoals
> RG> are quite attractive. Some examples,
> RG>
> RG> In the Fundamentals track there are two long tutorials that IMHO
> RG> are both of significant interest
> RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3635 PDE Build
> and build clinic
> RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3674
> RG> Building Commercial-Quality Eclipse Plug-Ins
> RG>
> RG> Similarly, there are two particularly interesting long tutorial proposals
> in the RCP track
> RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3585
> RG> RCP Development Using the Workbench and JFace
> RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3667
> RG> Developing Eclipse Rich-Client Applications
> RG>
> RG> And in the OSGi Track there are several long tutorial proposals but in
> particular
> RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3630
> RG> Building Service Oriented Bundle Architectures
> RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3607
> RG> Building Server-Side Eclipse based web applications
> RG>
> RG> So with the lack of long slots, I am torn as to how to choose.
> RG> In the OSGi track it the presenters of 3607 may be willing to
> RG> split into two shorts, one for basic technology and another for
> RG> more advanced uses. That's just me smokin' up ideas. For the
> RG> others, these kinds of topics really do press for full day, hands on work.
> RG>
> RG> Thoughts?
> RG>
> RG> Jeff
> RG>
> RG>
> RG>
> RG>
> RG> "Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
> RG> Sent by:
> RG> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 11/13/2006
> 08:40 PM
> RG> Please respond to
> RG> Eclipsecon Program Committee list
> RG> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> RG>
> RG> To
> RG> "Eclipsecon Program Committee list"
> RG> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> RG> cc
> RG> Subject
> RG> RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
> RG>
> RG>
> RG>
> RG>
> RG> I could easily fill more short tutorial slots if someone wants
> RG> to donate them - with AJAX, JSF, and JPA sub-projects all
> RG> incubating in WTP plus our existing technologies, we have 7 strong
> RG> abstracts that could all easily merit inclusion.
> RG>
> RG> I can also supply 2 long tutorials (i.e., 1 additional over my
> RG> allotted one) if there is an opportunity to do so.
> RG>
> RG> -----Original Message-----
> RG> From:
> RG> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> RG> [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Richard Gronback
> RG> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:24 PM
> RG> To: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
> RG> Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long
> tutorials
> RG>
> RG> Are there any other slots we'd like to reallocate? Do we all have
> RG> interesting/valuable content to fill our currently allocated slots? If
> not,
> RG> can they be contributed to another track? Which tracks (really) need
> RG> additional slots?
> RG>
> RG> Thanks,
> RG> Rich
> RG>
> RG> On 11/13/06 4:06 PM, "Philippe P Mulet"
> RG> <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> RG>
>>> 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-comm
>>> it
>>> tee
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-comm
>>> it
>>> tee
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-comm
>>> it
>>> tee
> RG>
>
>
> RG>
> RG> --
> RG> Richard C. Gronback
> RG> Borland Software Corporation
> RG> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> RG> +1 860 227 9215
> RG>
> RG>
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
