User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
FWIW, I decided not to advertise the top 5 status. I think you
guys made some good points.
Ian
On 3/15/2012 4:45 PM, David Carver wrote:
I don't mind awarding good talks, but guaranteing a slot to a
person just because they had a top 5 talk the year prior just
seems wrong. Their content may not be worthy of consideration
next year, or the topic may not be of relevance. I'm more in
favor of maybe giving them a benefit of the doubt the next year,
but an automatic pass not necessarily.
Guess same reason I'm not necessarily in favor of "Rock Star"
status either. Is the content good, is the talk relevant, those
should be the driving factors in my opinion. Besides you are
taking some of the choice away from next years program committee.
Maybe that committee didn't want to select the person, but because
they were top 5, they have to.
Dave
On 03/15/2012 10:37 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
I'm not as worried about the consequences. It's only
five. In general we welcome back the top 50 speakers anyway. It
would help create some buzz. People who see good talks like to
see the speakers rewarded somehow. It would be an interesting
social experiment at the worse.
:D
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM, ERIC
CLONINGER <dcp874@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ian,
By announcing that the top 5 get into the next year,
you have created a competition for a prize. While we like
to think of ourselves as fully transparent and operating
for the common good, I can see deliberate and
non-deliberate attempts to game the system to "win".
Overall, we're a nice bunch, but that doesn't mean that
everyone always act in a purely altruistic manner.
If you want to have such a thing, I suggest you keep
it to yourself until after the conference. Of course,
next year we may see the effects on polling as a result.
Is it safe to say that those people who are in the
conference year after year are there because they create
compelling content, that is of interest to people, and
they would probably get into the program on technical
merit alone?
There are always extenuating circumstances, like
switching employers that no longer support the cause,
etc. So I'm not against the idea of rewarding the best
content, I just think you need to be careful of
unintended consequences.
We will send
out a reminder to all the speakers that the
session slot is 35 minutes, including time for
questions. We will also stress that there is 10
minutes to change rooms at the end of your talk
but that does not mean you can go over you 35
minute duration. The only exception is if your
talk starts at 5pm on Tuesday and Wednesday, in
that case you can go for 50 minutes.
In the past we have never added the room change
time to the schedule and things seem to work
out. There is always some people who will go
over their allotted time but these people
typically are not influenced anything we put on
the schedule. They just don't know how to tell
time. :-)
btw, we also want to remind/encourage speakers to
ask for their attendees to solicit feedback online
for their sessions. What do people think of
awarding the top 5 speakers a slot in next years
conference. We would determine the top 5 speakers
based on the session feedback, a combination of
ratio of +1 to -1 and the overall number of
respondents.
Ian
On 3/15/2012 9:08 AM, John Arthorne wrote:
Yes I have had a
couple of confused people ask me this
question. The talk descriptions say 35
minutes, but the timeslot is 45
minutes. There is a 10 minute break to
switch rooms, but is that at the
beginning, end, or 5 minutes on each
side? What if the talk is immediately
before lunch or a longer break, can
they keep talking or take more
questions? We need to at least make
sure that information is clear to
speakers. Updating the online schedule
makes sense to me too.
[eclipsecon-na-program-committee]
Schedule leaves no
time for
switching rooms
Hi all,
Not sure if this has been discussed
before, but I noticed that on the
website the sessions endure 45 min
with no time between the sessions.
I fear that speakers will take that
as an invite to use up the full 45
mins leaving no time for switching
between rooms.
I think we should change that at
least for the online version and
have an explicit 10 min break
between each slot.
