Re: [eclipsecon-na-program-committee] Finished voting

[Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 21.11.2011 22:51, schrieb Schaefer, Doug:
> Hey gang, in trying to assign concepts to the vote number, we said that
> 3 means you’re OK with the talk being in. Well looking at the current
> results, it looks like you’ll need a >3.5 in order to get accepted. So,
> as that turns out, a 3 is actually a vote for decline as it lowers the
> average.

I kind of expected that. '3' is the average vote. However, we can only
pick an upper quarter of all talk submissions (~27%). Thus, average
means a talk won't make it.

Thus, if you really want to make sure that a talk is in, you have to
give it a '4' or '5'. I used '5' rarely at this point.

> I’m just wondering if that’s a problem or not. Thinking back, I’ll want
> to make sure I didn’t put a 3 vote in for talks that I actually didn’t
> have a strong opinion about that may skew the vote. Not sure if we
> should all do a pass like that.

If there is nothing negative about a talk I did put in a '3'. I did so
in order to be able to categorize talks into yes/maybe/no for myself in
my first round. My assumption is that if we don't have enough 'yes'
talks, I'll have to make another round on all my 'maybe' (==3) votes and
make a few 'yes' (>=4) picks. But given that we can only select ~27% of
all the talk submissions I think we won't even get to the 'maybe' picks...

-Gunnar


-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://wagenknecht.org/