Hi,
I think last night telco was great, you guys showed a lot of interest and got involved and it guess it was pretty exhausting for everyone.
Now its time to fine tune and get the rest sorted out. It also means that we have to let got some talks that some of us personally like, just because there are not enough slots to make everyone happy :-).
Note: I know a long mail, please take the time to read everthing
Extended talk slots
Last night we talked about an longer session format at the end of the first day (Tuesday). I briefly chatted with Anne about it after the talk. So here is what we come up this. We could allow a 60 minute time slot at the end of Tuesday.
All 60 minute session are in parallel and it makes no sense to have a standard slot in parallel.
So we have 7 x 60-minutes slots on Tuesday end of day. Each extended slot still only gets one ticket (same as standard) and these are not extra slots but these are 7 slots of the 78+25 talks that we accept.
So my take would be that we also give 2 slots to OSGi. They fill about 1.8 rooms (on average) of the 7 rooms that we have throughout the conference so that seems fair. Anne noted that it will also have an impact on BoF slots. We will have
one BoF between 20:30 and 21:30 (allowing pre-registeration online). We would not pre-register anything after that, but people like to talk about topics in a room after 21:30 (and not drink beer) there will be rooms. (no one did that last year) (Thats related
to the extend slot because of the long last talk slot, the BoF would start 30 minutes later, making a second BoF slot later less likely)
a) One natural candidate for this extended slot is
Model Symposium. That way they dont need 2 slots, but just the extended slot.
b) We had this other thing about Martin and Michael Scharf talking about similar topics (improving the Eclipse IDE or why its so bad). My idea would be, rather than putting them into a BoF, we could ask them to join in a 60 minute
session. This extended format would give them enough time and the address the same audience.
c) Another candidate was the „Migrating to e4“ topic. There were three talks in the same area at least.
„Migration to e4 - be aware of the pitfalls“ -
http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013/node/5248 from Philip Wenig
„Shake that FUD; How to migrate your Eclipse 3 legacy code to Eclipse 4“ -
http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013/node/5295 - Lars Vogel
„Eclipse 4: why, when and how to migrate“ -
http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013/node/5276 - Jonas Helming
It was suggest yesterday that Lars and Jonas join forces and merge into one talk. If we would make two of the topics a 60 minute talk, the problem
with that is that Jonas has probably strong interest in going to the Modeling Symposium. (happening at the same time) So I suggest to ask Lars and Philip to merge and leave Jonas talk either as it is. (he asked me if it is ok to slightly change the topic and
he will think about this over the weekend and of course the PC has to like that change...so lets wait until Monday)
What do you think about this idea ?
Two other speakers (or group of speakers) have approached me (several weeks ago) to get a longer time slot or two slots in a row.
„Simplifying Complex Embedded Development Processes with mbeddr?“ -
http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013/node/5302 - Stefan Schmierer, Markus Voelter, Bernd Kolb
Their argument was, that they are showing a customer solution and they also introduce a new framework „mbeddr“ with 3 speakers which is really
hard to do in 35 minutes. I personally would like to give them one of these extended slots.
„Discover Remote OSGi Services“ -
http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013/node/5294 - Wim Jongman and Markus Kuppe
Their argument was, that they want to do so many live demos that 35 minutes limits them. And they fear that people wouldnt come to a BoF afterwards.
I understand that argument but I find it to be true for many talks (that you could do more demos, if you have more time)
So keep in mind we can talk about 5 slots and before everone pulls out their favorite, be resonable. :-)
Please vote what you think about extended talk slot, the proposed ones, does it make sense so far, the candidates ? You can suggest something yourself.
Posting a list is probably not good since there are only 5 in total.
Reject Comments
What we do every year is that we give each and every rejected talk a comment on why it is rejected. The goal is to help people to improve for future conferences. So yes most of them were rejected because not enough people liked them :-)
but we need to be more specific. This is usually hard and time consuming. So we say stuff like „your project is not very active and the newsgroup shows no activity“, „we fear its a sales pitch“. The comment gets embedded in the reject email.
If you like you can also add comments for accepted talks. Like „please make sure that you contrate on take away lessons and not focus on marketing“, „not just only talk about how great atlassian is but also name other open source products“.
One problem is that our next call is on the 4th of September and the plan was to send out reject/accept notes on the 6th. So that gives us only one day. (Its a joint effort). So action item one for everyone is
to find some time in your calendar on the 5th :-) where you can add the rest of the reject comments. To help us I decided to mark all talks with a vote level of 5.5. or less as rejected. Thats not a final decision but its very likely that these talks
are rejected and it allows us to start with reject comments right now. If we turn a rejected talk into an accepted talk later we can always remove the comment. If there is a strong feeling that one talk is marked as rejected in error, you are free to simply
remove it.
The way we do it this, you go into the talk (following the URL) and you click on the edit (on top) and there is a field „Decline comment“. Every talk in the google doc has a column „first round reviewer“ (two people) so these are the ones
that are supposed to add the comment. Once you have added the comment, mark it as DONE in the next column. I suggest you can start working on that right now for every talk that is marked as rejected.
Personal
On a personal note, I have decided to pull back one of my submissions which is already in the accepted area. Currently I have 3 submissions and they all look good. However over the last two weeks (since the submission) a feeling that one
of the talks is not as great as I thought it would be has come up. Its this one
Porting Java code from Desktop to Android: It could be so nice -
http://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2013/node/5423 - Christian Campo
(I can explain the tech details over a beer, but they dont matter to much for the moment)
So I will mark that talk as „pulled back“ and that will give us one more slot.
„Need this“
I have noticed that some talks are marked as need this (Y) or do we really need this (N). Also someone asked if you can mark a talk from your own
company. The answer is yes you can. But I’d like all entries to be prefixed with the name.
Please reply about the topic extended talks, I like to hear from you what you think.
Thanks
Christian
p.s. After some editing I am going to resort the table... Please dont do that yourself, but you can ping me to get that done....
