Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | eclipsecon program committee list is now hidden | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Kim Moir <kim.moir> |
| Component: | MailingLists | Assignee: | Donald Smith <donald.smith> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | david_williams, denis.roy, karl.matthias, oisin.hurley, scottr |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Kim Moir
Previously it was intentionally open. I personally have no idea what the new decision making process was, nor did I change the list, but I did set up the old list. The original thinking was that the openness was in the spirit of the community and that being open prevented any impression of cronyism with regard to talks. Open doors prevent bitterness. Karl, I was told the exact opposite of what you're saying by last years program chair. Adding him for clarification. Kim, For whatever reason that we'll figure out at some point, we all believed the list was private. Therefore, people were using a communication style as such, and so I asked for this to be blocked until we figure it out. Private, public -- whatever the Program Committee would like is fine. But if people had been expecting privacy for some period of time (including myself, BTW), then I need to protect and respect that until we figure it out. - Don (In reply to comment #2) > I was told the exact opposite of what you're saying by last years program > chair. Adding him for clarification. Maybe so, but the list is older than last year. Of course, do what you think is right, I'm just explaining how it was. The list has always been closed to subscribers, but has been open in archive and RSS format. > Open doors prevent bitterness.
Perhaps not always.
If the PC rejects my talk because I'm a very, very poor speaker, that's fine. If the PC tells me just that, privately, that's great constructive criticism for me. To have the whole world know my talk was rejected because I'm a poor speaker is embarrassing.
The PC has a difficult job to do here, and one of the goals is to deliver a high-quality conference. I think they should be free to discuss candidly.
To the best of my knowledge, the program committee list has always been private, and you have to be invited to join the list. I did not realize that the archives were accessible as was the RSS. Should it be open or closed? There are good arguments going both ways. My opinion is that the conversations can get tough enough within the team. Having the added pressure of everyone else passing judgement would make the job even more difficult. (In reply to comment #5) > The PC has a difficult job to do here, and one of the goals is to deliver a > high-quality conference. I think they should be free to discuss candidly. Like I said, I personally don't care either way. But I think the problem you cite occurs only when there is a mismatch between what the program committee expects in terms of privacy vs how the list is set in reality. Not sure which is less rude of me to put in this case, "WORKSFORME" or "WONTFIX". Regardless, the consensus of the PC seems to be that we've been working under an assumption of privacy, so we'd like to continue that for remainder of this year. I will make a note to address this with the incoming Program Committee for 2011 so that we are all aware if it's open (or not) moving forward. - Don |