On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:12 PM, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 June 2015 at 01:38, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:07 AM, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I will look at both CFPs to check for duplicates as well as wrongly >> placed >> > presentations. >> >> By now -- I've seen quite a few identical talks submitted to both. It >> doesn't >> bother me for bucketing purposes, but it can become a problem for talk >> placement between different reviewers. >> > > It should not be for 2 reasons. > - E.g. You are reviewing both events.
yeah, but I'm somewhat unique in that set of reviewers. I don't think others who review big data also review core, that said... > - we schedule CORE before big data closes, so it the talk is not used in > CORE it participates in "big data". > (talks that we have used in CORE, should be marked with a "strong > reject" and reason in big data, I will control that) ...because of the above it may not be a problem after all. Thanks, Roman.
