[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] SOA Track
|
So what I am "hear" up to now is:
- Some people object to the SOA track because it feels to them like cheating or breaking rules
- The modelling symposium also breaks the same rules but with big success in the past and we should think twice before stopping them
To me rules should help us make a better conference program and should guarantee that we are not unfair to people (equal opportunies for everyone). If breaking rules create in OUR opinion (not just mine) a better program then lets break rules.
I think its pretty hard for an outsider to create a community within Eclipse if he is not already using a hype topic. I remember in past years we had for example a OFMP symposium (Open Financial Market Platform) where the OFMP people sat together for a whole day to discuss the possibility of the OFMP project proposal. (also in one of the small rooms) I admit that OFMP is dead today but not because of the symposium :-) but because of other reasons.
What I mean here is that we do these kind of exceptions sometimes.
BoFs are easy for very popular topics (like JavaFX) but hard for others. I once did a Eclipse Riena BoF (with only 3 people attending (outside the Riena committer group)). Its really hard at night to get people attracted to an unknown project. We also usually say that there should be NO overhead projection during BoFs but people should rather talk. (its not forbidden but discouraged). That is also pretty hard for introducing a new group of projects.
I think our role as PC must be to help the SOA people to find as many people as possible who are willing to give them a chance to listen to their content. The proposed track is from a top-level project with multiple projects in the track (from multiple companies). And what is most important for me they are "the new kid on the block". Unlike for example RT which is around for some time now.
Alternatives:
I think we could force them to do this SOA Night thing and even though it was my idea really I came to the conclusion that this will be "dead on arrival". They find too many people giving the time.
Another option is to tell them to break this into 4 submissions and then decide about each of them individually. Say 2 of them are accepted by us. That would already by optimistic given the fact that only a small group of people are interested in SOA. It will reduce the number of other talks that we can except. We give them speaker passes and so on. And we probably break the sessions apart into different rooms are different times. And we only have large rooms really in Ludwigsburg. Even if they find their maximum audience the room will be at least 1/2 empty if not 2/3 empty.
The alternative is we do a SOA symposium where the projects of the SOA PMC now that it is restructured and new projects where added get a chance to present themselves to interested people. On a plus side we dont loose any speaker passes we still have 5 tutorial slots left and we can see what will happen. I currently dont see any other PMC in the same situation but if there is, lets hear them.
BTW we can still include the discussion about this talk in the official telcos about the program that are starting next week. A little difference is that we can accept this submission without loosing other content. That is not true for the other tutorial slots because there are only 5 regular slots that we can give away. (And you dont want to do the modeling symposia in a room for 40 people :-) )
Still I am interesting in discussion if you have some free cycles :-)
Christian Campo
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ralph Mueller
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juli 2012 00:12
An: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Cc: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Betreff: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] SOA Track
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-ses
>>>> sions 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-prog
>>> ram-committee
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-progr
>> am-committee
>>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-progra
> m-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
-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
web: http://www.compeople.de/
Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------
