| [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] ECE 2013 spreadsheet |
Hi PC members,
great call last night....again 2 intense hours but we got a lot done.
I have updated the status column to only the still open status. When you review the spreadsheet please look at the talks there. Some of them have action items for PC-members (all of them where mentioned last night) who wanted to contact the speaker about the abstract. I removed status entries that are no longer meaningful.
There was a discussion in the call about Dalibor Topic and his proposal “Project Jigsaw”. As I recall the proposal wasnt rated that high since it since pretty much unchanged since last year and Jigsaw is in far distance in the future. Dalibor has indicated that he is willing to change the proposal to talk about Penrose if the PC wants to see that. He initially didnt submit Penrose because he thought that this was IBMs task (but they didnt).
We might as well leave it as it is.
I have resorted the table by average vote, added the talk times up and drew a red line where “the cut” is. Everything below the red line will be rejected. Everything above is in. (time to check your own talks :-) )
I have also included now the previously “rejected” proposals in the view.
I have added a new column “Should we reconsider ?” (Orginally I wanted to call it “pity-time” as in “What a pity this talk isnt in the program” but then maybe thats not so thoughtful). Anybody (in the PC) can put a “???” or any other sign, comment in that column for a talk that we should talk about next week in the call.
We can reconsider rejected as well as accepted talks. There is still time to do that. If we like to reconsider a rejected talk, we need to reject another talk though.
55 hours is a hard limit for the total program (unless the OSGi Community Event gives away talk time :-) )
There is also time to reconsider an extended talk. If you like to reconsider the length of an extended talk, also make a comment, mark in this new column “Should we reconsider”. (Dont touch the “Shorten” column though)
I remember we did this last year for one or two talks and that was a good thing to do. So consider it seriously. I have already marked a few that I thought about.
You also see that the talk above the line has exactly the same average vote as the next one below (5.88) and the next below is 5.86. Still the line has to be somewhere. I have marked these 3 talks as worth discussing since the current choice seems arbitrary and random. But we can only accept one of the three... Maybe its a good idea if you guys look at the abstracts again and come back with an opinion on Monday which one to choose.
Last not least, in rare cases you might want to change your vote on a proposal. This really must be the exception (dont go through all proposals and change your votes :-) ). In case you do thats fine. Please enter a “yes” in the column “vote changed” so we get notified. I dont have the intention to resort the table but rather I will resort manually.
Any questions, comments please post them on the mailing list.
Thanks
Christian Campo