Whenever you have a box there ensues a discussion over what is in the
box and what is out. More boxes => more discussion.
I like the idea of having fewer categories. We have in the past
seemingly gotten hung up on the program structure resembling the
project structure. I would combine the first two in your list.
On a related note, it is important to understand what we are talking
about here. In earlier EclipseCon's the categories were something used
in the submissions system. They did not really surface to the
conference attendees. We had the ability for people to define their
own tracks etc. Seems like we morphed into surfacing the categories as
tracks. So are these categories that the PC works in? For the
submissions system? Do conference attendees see them?
For the internals this is fine. I suspect we will end up with various
people taking responsibility for talks in particular subsections of
these categories but that seems natural. For consumers this
categorization is quite course. Someone mentioned tagging as a way of
helping people get a grip on the content. Good plan. I would suggest
we go back to a more fluid "define your own track" approach and us
tagging. To help drive that we get key people in the community can
define tracks and so not everyone has to role their own.
Jeff
Scott Rosenbaum wrote:
I
was reading
my newsreader (procrastinating on sending this email) when I came
across a review
by Guy Kawasaki of a book that he really likes. Basically it
provides 50 ideas that have been proven in the lap and business
applications. In reading the review I came across this nugget:
2. Researchers found that the more options offered in a
company
retirement plan, the fewer people participate in that plan. Similarly,
when experimenters offered only six flavors of jam, 30% of the people
who approached the display bought any jam. When the experimenters
offered 24 flavors, only 3% bought some. Therefore, instead of trying
to offer every color, size, and price point of gizmo, you might want to
reduce the choices to increase sales.
Just substitute jam
for category.
I would like to see the number of overall categories to be reduced from
the current twenty-one down to five. The best I could come up with was
six categories, but I am sure that we can figure out how to get down to
five. Have a look at my proposal and let me know what you think. How
do we go from 6 to 5? If you don't feel that this organization does
your category, please provide an alternative. (As long as you consider
all the categories and not just yours).
For your convenience, I have listed all of the original categories
first. Then I have my proposal with a mapping of the current talks
into the new categories.
CURRENT CATEGORIES
E4
Business
Industry
Director's Choice
Committer and Contributor
Other
OSGi DevCon
Runtime
Java
C/C++
Tools
Data Tooling
Emerging Technology
Mobile/Embedded
Modeling
Eclipse as a Platform
RCP
Reporting
SOA
Test & Performance
Web Tools
PROPOSED CATEGORIES
Runtime Platform (E4, Runtime, OSGi)
UI Platform (E4, RCP)
IDE Platform and Languages (Java, C/C++, Tools, Web Tools)
Applied Eclipse (Data Tooling, Reporting, Modeling, SOA, TPTP)
Emerging Technologies
Eclipse Business (Committer and Contrib, Business, Industry,
Director's Choice, Other)
Scott
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
|
