george@idis.UUCP (06/16/83)
Tentative Conference Schedule as of June 9 (reference: hcr.432) w1 OPENING w2 ___ w3 PROG TOOLS | UNIX IMPLEM w4 _| h1 user interf |_ h2 _| COMP & LANG h3 UNIX IMPLEM _|_ h4 UNIX DIREC _|_ (bof) f1 net _|_ applic f2 mail _|_ std, valid, port f3 (applic) _|_ (systems) f4 x | x Above is a schematic of the tentative conference schedule posted earlier. The left and right columns indicate concurrent sessions. The parenthesised topics are reserved times for which specific talks have not been pre-scheduled. The topic "x" indicates an unscheduled time. I consider the topics of UNIX, C, and tools to be of general interest. I consider the other topics to be of more special interest. In the schematic the general interest topics are printed in upper case. The special interest topics are printed in lower case. Notice the large number of temporal conflicts among the topics of general interest. I consider this very unfortunate. I am therefore proposing an alternate schedule in which general interest topics are not held simultaneously. Its schematic is below. Proposed Three Day Conference Schedule w1 OPENING w2 ___ w3 PROG TOOLS | user interf w4 _|_ h1 UNIX IMPLEM |_ applic h2 |_ (applic) h3 |_ std, valid, port h4 _|_ (bof) f1 COMP & LANG |_ net f2 _|_ mail f3 UNIX DIREC _|_ (systems) f4 x | x The announcement (via U.S. mail) from Rogal Boston indicated that the Software Tools Users' Group technical presentations were all to be held Tuesday evening 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm. If they are not going to utilize the daytime on Tuesday, then Usenix might use it to reduce the number of concurrent sessions. Proposed Four Day Conference Schedule t1 x _| t2 std, valid, port_| x t3 UNIX DIREC _| t4 x _|_ t5 s.t.u.g. presentations t6 ___ w1 OPENING w2 ___ w3 PROG TOOLS |_ (bof 1) w4 _|_ x h1 UNIX IMPLEM |_ applic h2 |_ (applic) h3 |_ x h4 _|_ (bof 2) f1 COMP & LANG |_ net f2 _|_ mail f3 (systems) _| x f4 x | Note that I added a second "birds of a feather" session in the above four day schedule. If the reserved sessions, "bof", "systems", and the second "applic" are ignored, a nearly full four day schedule with no concurrent sessions is possible. Although I do not like the use of concurrent sessions, I prefer the above proposed four day schedule, which has some free time and also accounts for those reserved sessions. I encourage discussion of this, in hopes of its having an influence on the conference organizers. George Rosenberg duke!mcnc!idis!george decvax!idis!george
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/19/83)
George Rosenburg's 4 day Usenix schedule appeals to me very much. However, unless I am mistaken, it totally ignores the "User Interface 1 & 2" talks. Here it is for those of you who havent seen the original article yet. Proposed Four Day Conference Schedule (George Rosenburg) t1 x _| t2 std, valid, port_| x t3 UNIX DIREC _| t4 x _|_ t5 s.t.u.g. presentations t6 ___ w1 OPENING w2 ___ w3 PROG TOOLS |_ (bof 1) w4 _|_ x h1 UNIX IMPLEM |_ applic h2 |_ (applic) h3 |_ x h4 _|_ (bof 2) f1 COMP & LANG |_ net f2 _|_ mail f3 (systems) _| x f4 x | However, this can be remedied by adding them to the Tuesday sessions where there are already 2 slots open. (Well, actually there are 3 slots, but I am aiming for a usenix with few concurrent sessions.) Given that you want to keep the two sessions together you can shuffle the proposed sessions for Tuesday to keep them back to back. Given that I have done that, it seems to me that I might as well put the OPENING as the first thing on Tuesday, so we can open with the OPENING. I am also going to put the Open Session on Applications back opposite the Open session on systems, since otherwise poor Ian Darwin who is chairing the Open Session on Applications wont get to see the Unix Implementation Talks. Ok? Here it is. I cant really take credit for it, since George Rosenburg has done the hard part, but how about the: Joint Creighton/Rosenburg Usenix Proposal t1 OPENING t2 ___ t3 UNIX DIRECTIONS _| t4 std, valid, port_| t5 s.t.u.g. presentations /* this is at 1900; there is lots of */ t6 ___ /* time to eat dinner */ w1 user interface |_ x w2 _|_ x w3 PROG TOOLS |_ (bof 1) w4 _|_ x h1 UNIX IMPLEM |_ x h2 |_ x h3 |_ x h4 _|_ (bof 2) f1 COMP & LANG |_ net f2 _|_ mail f3 systems _| applic f4 (systems) _| (applic) Actually, the Birds of a Feather Groups, since they are going to have to know who they are anyway, can schedule meetings opposite whatever they feel convienient, so the "(bof)" slots can be viewed as merely an attempt to show when the "bof" sessions *could* be held. I invite comment or criticism, again in the hope of it having an influence on the actual proceedings. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
grw@fortune.UUCP (06/20/83)
Although I have not attended a UN*X convention before, it
seems to me unwise to make a schedule in which all of your
choices are general interest topics vs. limited interest topics.
I would think there is quite an advantage to having a choice
between two topics, both of limited interest, where one or
the other would be a clear favorite. I like the schedule as
originally posted.
But what do I know?
-Glenn R. Wichmanmark@hp-kirk.UUCP (06/23/83)
#R:idis:-21100:hp-kirk:15900002:000:662
hp-kirk!mark Jun 21 06:42:00 1983
Given the heavy demand on the technical sessions which results in considerable
overbooking or restrictions on attendance, it is possible that the concurrent
sessions were not seen as a problem but rather as a partial solution since
this would give an opportunity of session attendance to the greatest number
of people (nobody could attend two sessions). I don't know that I am in
agreement with this but I would like to know if this was indeed the case.
Anybody know? Is there a better way?
Death Rowe
hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark
Corvallis, Oregon