In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin Hannigan writes: > > At 12:47 AM 10/16/2006, Steve Feldman wrote: > > [ SNIP ] > > > >I think I've given brief versions of that since then a few times > >during our community and/or newbie meetings. > > Steve > > > So? You're making the PC sound like a cumbersome provisioning > operation - which is why I'm suggesting "showing us" something > to measure it. I'm not interesting in the rating system. I'm > interested in what and how you do stuff so we know how it works > when it comes time to praise you or send you packing > during the "appointment" period. > > The suggestions are just suggestions. You can either > accept them in context and come up with alternatives, and if they > are not workable at all, try to explain why they aren't, or ignore > suggestions completely as in the past. > > Best, > > -M<
Martin, The ratings actually sped up the PC conference calls quite a bit when the PC first started using Steve's web software. On the call we'd start with the top rated presentations and work toward those with lower average ratings. With some discusssion some people were encouraged to change their mind (people on the PC have different familiarity with some of the topics). When we had enough to fill the schedule and nothing that anyone really wanted to see on the agenda left off, we could end the call. Would it help if you could see anonymous ratings without the comments that go with the ratings? Providing the comments would just mean people wouldn't record some (maybe most) of their comments and would have to make comments on the call. Curtis
