proposed alternate schedule

laura at utcsstat.UUCP laura at utcsstat.UUCP
Sun Jun 19 23:39:45 AEST 1983

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
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		        ___
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

More information about the mailing list