This page tries to describe the crieria and standards I used to judge papers.
Part One
- Interest to me (Alex) (-1:3)
- 6 - I'm _really_ interested in this area
- 4 - I'm interested in this area
- 2 - I'm mildly intersted or not sure
- 0 - I'm not interested in this at all
- -2 - I dislike or disapprove of this subject
- Expected Interest to average LCA attendee (-1:1)
- 1 - I think others would likely be more interested than me
- 0 - I expect people will like it like I do
- -1 - I don't think others will like it as much as me
- Relevance ("Core" Linux, kernel, glibc, gcc, X, essential linux specific utilities)(0:1)
- 1 - This relates to the kernel or other "Core" linux component
- 0 - This doesn't relate to Core linux
- Relevance (0:3) (kernel, filesystems, networking, databases, storage, programming languages, programming tools, desktop productivity, groupware, GUIs, audio, video, music, games, security, linux deployments, practical experience, embedded, virtual systems, handhelds, very large systems, distributions, management, standardisation, open source projects other than linux)
- 3 - Centrally relevant to one of the areas, plus related to two or more other areas.
- 2 - Centrally relevant to one of the areas.
- 1 - Related to one of the areas
- 0 - Not related to one of the areas
- Novelty (0:2)
- 2 - This is different, I've never head of it, it's very recent and it's not much out there on the 'net
- 1 - This is new and different
- 0 - Nup
- Coolness (-1:3)
- 3 - Woah, absolutely awesome, this will totally make everyone's LCA
- 2 - This is _really_ cool stuff
- 1 - kinda neat
- 0 - Yeah, OK. This is .... stuff
- -1 - This is quite boring material
Part Two
- Knowledge (of the subject area)
- 4 - Guru
- 2 - Knows what they're talking about
- 0 - Doesn't know
- Skills (in presenting)
- 4 - Well trained & experinced speaker
- 2 - Moderately experienced speaker
- 0 - No speaking experience or not known
- Evidence
- 6 - Universal rave reviews
- 4 - Generally really good feedback
- 2 - Feedback good on balance
- 0 - No feedback or mixed feedback
- -2 - Bad feedback
This is what I was going to do for part two, but it ended up much too hard...
- Fit (with other talks/stuff at LCA)(-2:2)
- 2 - This goes with another important talk or event, or draws a theme together
- 1 - fits in well
- 0 - Doesn't necessarily fit, or unsure
- -1 - Bad fit
- -2 - Would seriously detract from the conference
- Spread (0:2)
- 2 - one of a few talks in an area we want to encourage
- 1 - one of a few talks in this area
- 0 - one of quite a bunch in this area
- Knowledge (5)
- 5 - Generally acknowledged as the guru in this area
- 4 - From research I've done, this person obviously has an incredibly deep knowledge of this subject
- 3 - Person has a thorough knowledge, more than adequate for presenting this talk.
- 2 - Person probably knows what they're talking about
- 1 - Although person probably knows what they're talking about, there is also evidence of gaps
- 0 - This person just doesn't know enough
- Involvement (with an open-source project) (-1:3)
- 3 - Project lead for some time.
- 2 - core developer or other vital role for the project for some time
- 1 - involved with the project for some time
- 0 - not involved with the prject
- -1 - has detracted from the project
- Experience, service length (with this or a related open source project) (0:3)
- 3 - 6 years+ with the project
- 2 - 3 years+
- 1 - 1 year+
- 0 - less than a year.
- Presentation skills, experience (-2:10)
- 10 - would put the best (eg. music, sports) performers to the test in terms of their crowd pulling performance.
- 8 - they've had exceptional feedback at past presentations, natural talent and people come away fired up and excited.
- 6 - consistent pattern of good feedback from past presentations, they work hard to achieve a good result
- 4 - History of good average presentations
- 2 - history of average presentations
- 0 - Strictly average presentations or no information
- -2 - Significant bad feedback from past performances
