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

["Campo, Christian" <Christian.Campo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for getting this sorted out before the telco tomorrow…..

+1

christian

Am 31.07.12 19:54 schrieb "Martin Lippert" unter <lippert@xxxxxxx>:

>
>+1
>
>Cheers,
>-Martin
>
>
>> I like Achim's solution. We already have the tradition of a Modeling
>> Symposium, which we know the community likes. The Modeling people decide
>> what content to present in that 3.5 hour slot -- we schedule it and give
>> it a room. It's easy to do the same thing for the SOA community.
>>
>> We could add the SOA Symposium to the tutorial pre-registration system,
>> just like we do for the Modeling Symposium -- this gives it some
>> visibility and allows it to be in the right room (re capacity).
>>
>> Anne Jacko
>> Eclipse Foundation
>> 503-784-3788 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Achim Lörke wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> after reading the opinions of the others who commented I think the
>>> opportunity for groups to gather community is important enough to
>>> allow special sessions. I personally like the idea of symposia
>>> (especially with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium in mind). So
>>> let's take the free rooms, give one to the SOA guys, and ask around if
>>> anyone else is up for a symposium.
>>>
>>> Achim
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting "Campo, Christian" <Christian.Campo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> <mailto:Christian.Campo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We could have morning BoFs yes. We have as I remember from Anne about
>>>> 3 additional small rooms during the Tutorial timeframe. (2
>>>> Seminarrooms and WKZ which is the small half round room at the end
>>>> above the entrance in the second floor)
>>>>
>>>> However we have to make sure that we dont split the concurrent
>>>> sessions into too many pieces. 6 tutorials plus 3 BoFs so in total 9
>>>> tracks sounds like a lot too me. But we could do that. I think it is
>>>> a cool occassion for niche products or technologies. You dont want to
>>>> discuss JavaFX or E4 in the tutorial timeperiod because a lot of
>>>> people love to go to the tutorials and you dont want to loose those.
>>>> But it might work for topics with a small audience.
>>>>
>>>> As Ralf Mueller indicated he wants us to suggest something other than
>>>> an evening BoF to help the SOA people. Another option that Anne Jacko
>>>> suggested is what EF also sometimes does is allow community members
>>>> to have a closed session somewhere that is invitation only. Such a
>>>> session is not in the program and has the disadvantage that you need
>>>> to find the people to invite and its harder to get attendees.
>>>>
>>>> I need the people how had concerns with the original SOA Track idea
>>>> (mainly Jonas and Achim maybe others who didnt raise their voice) to
>>>> come up with suggestions and ideas so we find a solution that works
>>>> for everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Christian Campo
>>>>
>>>> -----UrsprÃpngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> <mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Im Auftrag von Martin Lippert
>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juli 2012 18:12
>>>> An: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
>>>> Betreff: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] SOA Track
>>>>
>>>> Hey!
>>>>
>>>> I had to think about this for a while, therefore my late reply.
>>>>
>>>> What about opening up the time slot of the tutorials for additional
>>>> BoF sessions (if we can arrange a few small rooms for them). Then we
>>>> could tell them to do a BoF in that room at that time, and we can
>>>> tell other people to signup for additional BoFs, if they want. And we
>>>> could maybe arrange an open and transparent online board for those
>>>> BoFs, so that people can see what BoFs are going to happen, when, and
>>>> where.
>>>>
>>>> Would be kind of an "open space" slot for EclipseCon Europe, which I
>>>> would like. We would not sponsor those sessions with free passes or
>>>> something like that, just with a place to meet. Maybe that place
>>>> would not even have a beamer, but a flipchart instead, which would
>>>> underline the interactive character of those sessions (and avoid
>>>> standard talks to slip in there...)
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27.07.12 11:55, Campo, Christian wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----UrsprÃpngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto: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 GrÃpsse/Best Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph Mueller
>>>>> +49 177 449 0460
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 25.07.2012 um 23:03 schrieb Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>> <mailto: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-se
>>>>>>>>> s 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><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 <http://www.bredex.de>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GeschäftsfÃphrer: Hans-J. Brede, Achim Lörke, Ulrich Obst
>>>>>>>> Amtsgericht Braunschweig HRB 2450
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>>>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-pro
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>> ram-committee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> <mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-prog
>>>>>>> r
>>>>>>> am-committee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> <mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-progr
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> m-committee
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-progra
>>>>> m-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: JÃprgen Wiesmaier
>>>>> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
>>>>>
>>>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
>>>>> Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
>>>>> USt-IdNr. DE207665352
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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: JÃprgen Wiesmaier
>>>> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
>>>>
>>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
>>>> Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
>>>> USt-IdNr. DE207665352
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>>>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> <mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
>>>>-committee
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> BREDEX GmbH
>>> Mauernstr. 33
>>> 38100 Braunschweig
>>>
>>> Tel.: +49-531-24330-0
>>> Fax:  +49-531-24330-99
>>> http: www.bredex.de <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
>>> <mailto: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-c
>>ommittee
>>
>_______________________________________________
>eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-co
>mmittee


-------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------