peterd@cs.washington.edu (Peter C. Damron) (10/25/89)
In article <1989Oct24.140024.11372@odi.com> mlm@odi.com (Mitchell Model) writes: > >> ... OOPSLA. >> It is a sad fact that there are people out there who are trying to >> capitalize on a popular theme by teaching tutorials or running seminars >> without adequate preparation. ... > >I know there have been a lot of poor tutorials at OOPSLA conferences, >and I don't want to defend them. However, people should be aware that >due to ACM policy restrictions, tutorial speakers "capitalize" to the >extent of (at least at OOPSLA '88 rates) $400 per half day tutorial, >airfare, and the cost of a room for one night. Such rates don't >provide much motivation for preparation, though there are of course >other motivations. I believe that the organizing committee for these conferences is largely volunteers. They might not have enough time to evaluate all speakers before they appear. I suspect that they rely on reputation and published work. Fill out your evaluation forms, so they can do a better job next time. >Your money, therefore, goes to the ACM, which undoubtedly loves the >OOPSLA conference. ... Actually, I believe that your money goes to SIGPLAN, a special interest group within ACM. I heard that OOPSLA is a money maker for SIGPLAN. This money largely goes toward providing SIGPLAN members with low-cost copies of the proceedings of OOPSLA and other SIGPLAN conferences. >... When I think of all >the forces and factors over the years that have futhered the >development and propagation of object technology the ACM does not come >immediately to mind. I don't see how you can discount the importance of the OOPSLA conferences in furthering the development of "object technology". Peter. --------------- Peter C. Damron Dept. of Computer Science, FR-35 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 peterd@cs.washington.edu {ucbvax,decvax,etc.}!uw-beaver!uw-june!peterd