Thanks, John. Agreed. Are there other talks you guys see that we should be taking another look at? The JRebel one was a good one too. Let’s keep that going
and make sure we’re not missing anything.
:D
From: eclipsecon-na-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipsecon-na-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John Arthorne
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:56 PM
To: Eclipsecon NA program committee discussions
Cc: Eclipsecon NA program committee discussions; eclipsecon-na-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [eclipsecon-na-program-committee] Finished voting
> "Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by:
eclipsecon-na-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> I definitely take into account number of votes as well, 4 actually
> being the threshold where I start to wonder about the result. A talk
> with 8 votes makes me wonder as well, especially the 3 factor I
> mentioned earlier. But it all depends on the context. For example 8
> people voted for the LTTng tracing talk which is actually an
> important new area in Linux tools and CDT. I voted 5 and the average
> sits at 3.25. Not sure what to make of that.
That's probably an example of a talk falling through the cracks... (7*3 + 5)/8 = 3.25. I know I gave it a 3 because it seemed fine but not amazing. It felt like a bit of a niche "what's new in LTTng" talk. Based on your input
that this is an important new area for CDT/LinuxTools I've bumped my vote up to 4. I definitely think it's worth bringing up talks that you think didn't get a fair assessment on this list and we can revise.
John
