I've added comments to about 9 submissions. I'm not
sure I was very polite (I'll probably revisit them again
tomorrow). I've also added the PC Tag 'rejectComment'. If we all
add this once we've added comments, we can see what submissions
still need comments.
Some reasons I tend to reject talks.
1. If the talk makes quantitative claims about the state of
the world then I expect evidence. This is especially true if
they are going to teach me how to fix this problem. For
example, 75% of all OpenSource projects fail because of foo.
In this talk we will show you how to use foobar to solve all
the problems.
In this case I expect the abstract to tell me where they
came up with 75% and more importantly why their approach
works. This should have been explained in the abstract.
2. Product pitches.
I often just call a spade a spade. Maybe this isn't the
best approach, what do others think?
3. Poorly written abstracts.
I get angry if I spend more time evaluating a proposal then
the author did submitting it. In this case I would mention
that the abstract was poorly written and it was hard to
understand what was going to be discussed.
4. Good idea, just no room.
For a great many talks the answer is simple, this is a
great proposal but we had so many great proposals we
unfortunately could not accept this. In this case I try to
point to other talks by the author that we did except.
5. Out of scope.
If it is out of scope, I will often just say that. Some
people put their talk in every possible conference with the
hope they get accepted. If the abstract is not tailored to the
Eclipse community then I mention the importance of this.
Does that help?
Ian
