Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] SOA Track

[Ralph Mueller <ralph.mueller@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's my point of view: Unfortunately, BoF's are the right thing to dp, but they don't work ... not sure why that is. I propose to try new ways.

PS: Have not received any sponsoring money from any SOA corp :-)

Liebe Grüsse/Best Regards

Ralph Mueller
+49 177 449 0460

Am 25.07.2012 um 23:03 schrieb Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Hi all,
> 
> sorry for interfering here. I just wanted to point out one thing:
> 
> I think/fear that the number of attendees will be significantly
> reduced if the modeling symposium (that's what it was called in the
> beginning) will be hold as some kind of BoF in the evening. That does
> not mean that the current format should or could not be changed. It is
> just something to keep in mind. I would as well distinguish between
> Modeling and all the rest :-) For whatever reason people are heavily
> attracted by all kind of modeling sessions at ECE and the symposium
> is/was a format were people could get an update in a very condensed
> form.
> 
> Just my 2 cents,
> Bernd
> 
> 2012/7/25 Simon Kaufmann <simon.kfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Indeed, the Modeling Symposium was crowded last year. I was also wondering
>> that there are so many (really short) talks that were not submitted (or
>> accepted?) in the regular program and apparently there is a significant
>> audience for them. That leaves kind of a bad feeling. On the other hand, it
>> is one of the best things that can happen - a community is gathering at
>> EclipseCon and they organise themselves, exchanging some more or less cool
>> stuff. And hopefully this is attracting more and more people who are working
>> on those topics. So we somehow have to deal with it and facilitate this kind
>> of community exchange. I don't think it hurts the spirit of the conference
>> at all.
>> 
>> However, from my point of view, that's exactly what the BoFs are meant for,
>> right? Definetly, this format (be it modeling symposium or SOA track) is not
>> what a tutorial is originally meant to be like. So I really like the fact
>> that it's out of question to give SOA a precious official tutorial slot. And
>> actually this also applies to modeling - I second Achim, it's cheating on
>> the tutorial idea and on the session selection process of the official
>> program.
>> 
>> From looking at the PDF, my gut feeling would be that there hardly will be
>> competition between the SOA track and neither the BoFs nor the tutorials.
>> SOA/BPM is not exactly a hype topic anymore that everybody will attend to
>> just because it is mainstream. Rather, it became a specialized topic and
>> having the typical EclipseCon audience in mind I would even consider 30
>> attendees ambitious. But I'd love to get surprised and proven wrong in this
>> point. I really think they should get the chance to build up a community.
>> Enterprises still love this topic and there is a significant market
>> potential. Still, personally I prefer it to be a BoF.
>> 
>> Would it be an option to have something like "promoted" or "preselected"
>> BoFs, i.e. guarantee SOA ("rookie") and modeling ("famous") a BoF slot and
>> do a little advertising for them in the program?
>> 
>> So my vote: -0.5 (to indicate it's not a strong opinion - as long as they
>> get a "spare" room).
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
>> 2012/7/25 Achim Lörke <Achim.Loerke@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> like Jonas I don't like the idea of a special treatment for talks
>>> disguised as tutorials. The Modeling symposium is there because of its
>>> history but actually this is cheating on the talk selection process, too.
>>> 
>>> So my vote is -1.
>>> 
>>> Let's give them enough room for an extended BOF.
>>> 
>>> Achim
>>> 
>>> Quoting "Campo, Christian" <Christian.Campo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Program Committee,
>>>> 
>>>> here is a summary of some conversation that went on in the past week
>>>> between some of the SOA PMC (Marc Gille) and me and Ralph and Anne.
>>>> 
>>>> If you look at the submission
>>>> http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2012/sessions/soa-track-mutiple-sessions it
>>>> has only a small abstract but a pretty long PDF attached to it.
>>>> 
>>>> Its submitted as a tutorial but only because as a tutorial because that
>>>> has the length that the SOA people like to have. They had some early
>>>> conversation with Mike and Ralph that led to this submission. They also sent
>>>> an email to Ralph and myself once the submission was in.
>>>> 
>>>> Given that we have a total of 13 tutorial submissions and 5 slots I saw
>>>> little chance that this will get anywhere given that its not even a tutorial
>>>> and tutorial are pretty popular. I asked Anne if there is small room
>>>> somewhere that we could give them in parallel to the tutorials. We have the
>>>> Seminarrooms (in the basement), both of them, which are not taken during the
>>>> tutorials. I also suggest to them (as a alternative) to do a "SOA night" in
>>>> parallel to the BoFs where they could have 3 or 4 hours in one of the rooms.
>>>> At the same time I asked to estimate the number of people coming. Their
>>>> goal is to get 30 people to call it a success which is not that much given
>>>> the 600 attendee for the conference that we are aiming at (hopefully we get
>>>> there).
>>>> 
>>>> After these choices the SOA PMC decided that they would call off the
>>>> tutorial and their favorite choice would be to have a small room in parallel
>>>> to the tutorial. People who choose to the SOA track would not be able to
>>>> attend the tutorials (they are aware of this). We would put the SOA sessions
>>>> as regular submissions into the system (4 sessions) after the 31st of July
>>>> and add a SOA track to the program. They don't get speaker passes for this
>>>> SOA track and need to do some marketing to get people interested. Everyone
>>>> can attend the SOA track (its not a closed session but open to everyone)
>>>> 
>>>> So here is an action item for everyone in the PC. Are we all ok with this
>>>> ? Anyone fears that it would distract people from the tutorials ? Anyone
>>>> feels that we shouldn't have this kind of special content ? Strong feeling
>>>> pro or con ? Questions ? Anything clear ?
>>>> 
>>>> Please vote +1 and -1 (and 0 if you must :) ). Raise concerns. Now is a
>>>> good time.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Christian Campo
>>>> 
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> compeople AG
>>>> Untermainanlage 8
>>>> 60329 Frankfurt/Main
>>>> fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
>>>> fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
>>>> web: www.compeople.de<http://www.compeople.de/>
>>>> 
>>>> Vorstand: J?rgen Wiesmaier
>>>> 
>>>> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
>>>> 
>>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
>>>> Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
>>>> USt-IdNr. DE207665352
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> BREDEX GmbH
>>> Mauernstr. 33
>>> 38100 Braunschweig
>>> 
>>> Tel.: +49-531-24330-0
>>> Fax:  +49-531-24330-99
>>> http: www.bredex.de
>>> 
>>> Geschäftsführer: Hans-J. Brede, Achim Lörke, Ulrich Obst
>>> Amtsgericht Braunschweig HRB 2450
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee
>