Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Me, early Jan'06: Paper submitted.
> Linuxsymposium, 16 Feb 2006 : Paper approved.
> Linuxsymposium, date unknown: Silently moved to a BOF, I was never notified.
> Me, 9 Mar 2006 : BOF rejected by me because last year I did held a SAS BOF.
> Linuxsymposium, 9 Mar 2006 : moved back to a paper.
> Linuxsymposium, 9 Mar 2006 : paper rejected.
>
> Serial Attached SCSI, An Architecture For Linux
On the face of it, the Ottawa Linux Symposium has some
explaining to do. This following quote is from:
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/cfp.php
"Step 2 Committee Review"
"The programme committee will review your proposal per
the guidelines above. Notification of acceptance or
rejection will be sent by February 15th, 2006."
Luben, it looks like you failed at Step 2.5 (hidden):
political correctness. Perhaps OLS approved another
paper from a different author on a similar subject?
For reference here is the OLS review committee who, it
would seem, "approved" Luben's paper:
Jeff Garzik, Red Hat Software
Gerrit Huizenga, IBM
Andrew Hutton, Steamballoon Incorporated
Dave Jones, Red Hat Software
Ben LaHaise, Intel Corporation
Matt Mackall, Selenic Consulting
Patrick Mochel, Intel Corporation
Craig Ross, Linux Symposium
Doug Gilbert
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 09:18 -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > Me, early Jan'06: Paper submitted.
> > Linuxsymposium, 16 Feb 2006 : Paper approved.
> > Linuxsymposium, date unknown: Silently moved to a BOF, I was never notified.
> > Me, 9 Mar 2006 : BOF rejected by me because last year I did held a SAS BOF.
> > Linuxsymposium, 9 Mar 2006 : moved back to a paper.
> > Linuxsymposium, 9 Mar 2006 : paper rejected.
> >
> > Serial Attached SCSI, An Architecture For Linux
>
> On the face of it, the Ottawa Linux Symposium has some
> explaining to do. This following quote is from:
> http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/cfp.php
>
> "Step 2 Committee Review"
>
> "The programme committee will review your proposal per
> the guidelines above. Notification of acceptance or
> rejection will be sent by February 15th, 2006."
I can understand a rejection; I mean, last year there was already a BOF
about the topic, which makes the "newness" of the talk less. In weighing
the undoubtedly very many proposals, the OLS committee needs to make
hard choices obviously; and I can see the point of preferring new talks
over talks which cover a topic that was discussed the year before.
that to me doesn't sound like a conspiracy, but just running a
conference sanely.