Hi, > We had 32,000 scores submitted (between 50 and 70 per talk)
Which seems better than the older systems we have tried. > As for the 'daily batch' you had to go through, I'll admit that 720 or > whatever the number was, is a tad much. We can definitely lower that > number to make it more digestible. +1 to that. 50 - 100 matches at most please, otherwise it tends to blur a bit after a while. When reviewing I did run into a few minor issues: - Some talks gave away the speakers name, but most were anonymous. Sometime the name is important / most of the time it is not. Perhaps best to edit the occasional name out for the review process? But do you really want to miss out on say Jim's Apache Way talk because he only put in a one line description? - Hard to compare totally unlike talks how do you rate a talk in diversity vs a talk on the internals of the HTTP server? - Similar subject talks didn't come up as often as I like to be compared with each other. there was 3 or 4 Apache ways talks but I don;t think I managed to directly compare them. - I would of really like to see the extra info the speaker submitted (not so much the name and bio) but why this talk in important to Apache and why people would attend. Seems useful to know that. Thanks, Justin
