Hi, > That said, the 30 reviewers did a HUGE amount of work.
Given the number of reviewers I think that seeing your own talks is not actually an issue as there’s no way a single person could skew the results. > And we do indeed see a lot of new faces in the speakers, which was a specific > goal. Good to know. Again it certainnly looks like it works better than other processes we have tried. > However, the Big Data event, in particular had a hard time > attracting a reasonable number of reviewers. We need help with that next > time. Reviewing those talks was a lot harder, and unless you know the subject matter very well it’s harder to compare talks as the quality of submissions was a lot moe even in quality. > I would then be left with a pool of 200 talks, all of which were rated 4 > (this is only a slight exaggeration) No fun at all and means the review process is not working. > Thank you for your work. And thanks so much for your hard work and effort, ApacheCon would exist in the current form without you. Thanks, Justin
