| While we are at it:
I think we should accept at least one of the three Ceylon submissions.
Sven On Nov 22, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Schaefer, Doug wrote: 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 > "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 _______________________________________________ eclipsecon-na-program-committee mailing list eclipsecon-na-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxxhttp://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipsecon-na-program-committee
|
