I like “category” better than these. J
We’ll live with being renamed, I think.
From:
eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Vocabulary
How about "type", "committee", and
"track"?
Or "type", "area", and "track"?
So
we’re now all “Category Leads”? Sounds a look silly, but if it
makes you happy, we can do it.
For
vocabulary clarity, let’s use the following terms when discussing content:
- type - keynote, tutorial, long talk, short
talk, etc. – the length and format of the session
- category - one of the two things that used
to be known as a "track", this is how the program committee
divides itself into sub-PCs: there is an RCP category and an OSGi category
and a New Technology category and a Web Tooling category, etc.
- track - the other of the two things that
used to be known as a "track" and still is: these are the user
defined (or Ian defined) traces through the entire program. For example
"Bjorn's Track" or the "Dynamic Languages Track".
|
