OOPSLA already is a federated conference:
If the goal is to revitalize OOPSLA and not invent an alternate conference then the imbalances that exist in the various sub-conferences need to be addressed and there needs to be a better means of integrating across the subs.
Rentsch was right when he predicted (circa 1989) that within ten years everyone would be doing objects, doing them differently, and doing them wrong. Objects are not so much passe/mainstream as they are meaningless - almost any programming practice can be called OO without challenge. The OO "brand" needs to be revived.
Insiders are bored, tired of listening to each other, and already networked among themselves. Outsiders are not currently afforded much opportunity to become insiders, nor are they given much in the way of incentive (shown the value) of becoming insiders. A criteria for acceptance of any proposalpaper, etc. should be how it will attract outsiders/.
The technical program is in greatest need of fixing. Peer review, acceptance, publication satisfy the tenure credentials - so why punish everyone by having the written papers recapitulated orally? In addition to the paper and abstract, require a presentation plan - how will the author(s) use their 15-30 minutes to interact with the audience? Reject anything that merely recapitulates. Perhaps make the entire technical program a poster-session instead of a lecture series. A quick review of past OOPSLA technical programs reveals that interesting, broad scope, idea papers have been accepted. The emphasis on formal, highly technical, specialized and nuanced minor advances is a sign of "conference maturity" not a requirement for academic credit. (Similar phenomenon are obvious in AI and Neural Net conferences as they matured.)
Tutorials - Separate into two types: those focused on bringing newcomers up to speed and/or particular concepts (Objects 101, OO testing, objects and agililty, etc.) and those focused on a particular technique, tool. method, etc. The first type should be integrated with the Educator's forum - show us how to teach instead of telling us how to teach. (Registrants for the Educators forum could attend a couple of these tutorials for free as observers.) The second type should be sponsored - by the book publisher of the presenter, the consulting company of the presenter, the technology vendor whose products are incorporated into the tutorial or for which the presenter works, etc. These tutorials can still be charged for, perhaps at a lower rate, and could be incorporated into the vendor show in some manner.
Keynotes - again create two types: inspirationalcontroversial - like the Lessig and Ungar keynotes last year plus the "State of the Object Idea" keynote; and, application themed: objects and ubiquitoous computing, objects and ontological computing, objects and artificial lifecomplexity, objects and pen computing, objects and the idea behind .NET, objects and agility.
Better vertical integration: Inspirational keynotes lead to Open Space sessions, leads to social event conversations. Application keynote leads to application papers, leads to application workshops, connects to technical papers where possible. Conceptual tutorial leads to educator's forum workshops. leads to educator paper poster sessions. Technique/technology workships lead to workshops, to demos, to vendor booths. --davewest
On RadicalSuggestions, Ken and I suggest a variant of paper sessions where the audience talks about the papers rather than the authors present them. --BjornFreemanBenson