I like the gathering of Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) for several reasons; apart from the conference is considered a high quality one despite having a limited number of papers and delegates, my mentor in empirical research, Barbara Kitchenham, has been heavily involved in EASE’s organizating committees until quite recently. So I not only try to send my work to EASE but also like to go there as often as possible. However, it looks like that I always have inconvenient experiences while reaching to the EASE venue. My journey to Keele back in 2007 was not very easy one despite I had to just travel from Limerick to Standsted airport and then over to Keele. It happened to be a longer trip than I had expected according to information that I had gathered. Anyway, it was nothing as compared to my journey from Limerick to all the way to Bari, Italy for EASE 2008.
Read More »Going to EASE is always good!
Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that Agile approaches have had significant impact on industrial software development practices. Many companies which I have come to know through my collaborative and consultancy contacts, especially in Scandinavian region, have adopted and/or are planning to adopt agile approaches. Despite becoming widely popular, there remains quite a great deal of perplexity about the role and importance of a system’s software architecture in agile approaches.
Whenever I look at the literature on or listen to proponents of both topics, a large number of advocates of software architecture discipline appear to be skeptics of the scalability of any software development approach, not necessarily agile, that does not pay sufficient attention to architectural aspects. Looking at the other camp, I get the impression that as if Agile proponents were out there to implicitly or explicitly say that efforts required for looking after the architectural aspects are of little value to the customers of a system. Read More »Agility and Architecture – Why and How to combine them?
It is a great sense of satisfaction that we were able to complete the review process for Profes 2010 in a record time despite we also had several email based discussions on conflicting reviews. Many of the reviewers actively were actively involved in the discussions and selection process. We are greatly thankful to the program committee for not only seeking almost double the number of submissions to this year’s Profes but also providing detailed and timely reviews – the volunteering spirit for the community service was commendable.
The other program Co-Chair, Matias and I carefully considered each of the reviews on the submitted papers and had useful discussions with Markku (GC) about the last year’s submissions and acceptance rate and this year’s submissions and reviews. Our selection decisions were influenced by the thoughts of all involved that Profes should enter to the second decade of its life with being more high quality conference despite we were aware of the vital need of attracting participants. We decided that we would try our best to attract more participants to Profes 2010 without lowering the quality of the program.
Read More »Profes 2010 – Authors notified