| [eclipsecon-na-program-committee] CfP is now closed - please review all the submissions |
Hi, The CfP is now closed. We have 138 talks and 17 tutorials submitted. Thank you everyone for your commitment in increasing the number of submissions since the initial deadline! We now have roughly 50% more submissions. Great work! I've added the new submissions to the spreadsheet https://goo.gl/CMcD11. You can now review all of them. Remember that you need to review the first two sheets in the document ("Standard talks" and "Tutorials"). Each of you has its own column with its acronym. Please also remember that your vote should be from 1 to 5 (no 0 to be comparable with the community voting). "0" values are dimmed to make it easier for you to find missing votes. "X" means that you see a conflict of interest in rating a talk. When you evaluate a talk, if you have questions for the speaker or if you feel that the abstract should re-written and/or the title should be changed, feel free to post a public comment on the submission web page. I've also added 3 columns with the community voting results. The column CV is the number of votes the submission has received, the other two are the average and standard deviation of the rating. You will notice that some of these numbers are colored in red. It shows the community voting that won't be taken into account by the PC rate average. Here is the criteria I've used: We have an average of 2.24 vote / talk and the std deviation is 2.99. I've chosen a ratio of 2 for this stdev, which does 2*2.99 = 5.97. The minimum number of votes for the community voting to be taken into account is the average (2.24) + 5.97 = 8.21. It means the CV rating of talks having less than 9 votes won't be taken into account for the global (PC and CV) rate average. For these talks, the cells with CV numbers are red. Below are the submissions with the highest CV rates filling the above criteria (they are colored in blue on the spreadsheet): The good, the bad, the ugly - A review of Eclipse 4, its APIs and architecture (Thomas Schindl) - CV = 4.5 (10 votes) Your first Application based on Eclipse - FAQ (Jonas Helming) - CV = 4.47 (17 votes) Modeling Symposium (Philip Langer, Jonas Helming, Ed Merks) - CV = 4.41 (17 votes) Gerrit + Eclipse = EGerrit (Pascal Rapicault, Jacques Bouthillier) - CV = 4.36 (11 votes) Despite the modeling symposium has a higher rate than "Gerrit + Eclipse = EGerrit", I suggest we choose the more regular submission "Gerrit + Eclipse = EGerrit". The modeling symposium content is not defined yet and I prefer to choose a talk with a content already known. Moreover, the symposium will very likely be accepted by us, so no harm is done. Finally, Jonas is listed as the speaker on the symposium submission and another submission above, so I'd like better promote someone else. What do you think? Of course, we will talk about this topic during our call next Monday. Finally, you will see two additional columns (Y and Z) with the average rates and standard deviations from our votes and the community voting (if it respect the criteria explained above). With the low number of community voting, I did not apply any weight to the community rate. It counts for 1 person. Please feel free to comment on that decision. Feel free to ask for more details if something is not clear enough. Otherwise, let's talk about all of these on Monday, 17:30 CET. My plan is start with the tutorials, the low rated talks and talks with a "high" standard deviation. Thanks again for your valuable time and inputs. Cheers, Mikael |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail