At 02:59 PM 10/16/2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 16-Oct-2006, at 14:23, Martin Hannigan wrote:
We shouldn't sit here and define the metrics to measure
the PC or the MLC, but we should provide some feedback and they
should do the metrics to measure themselves. The MLC has that and we
bark over them every session. It's great. We know exactly what's
going on. Why shouldn't the PC submit themselves to the same thing,
in some relatively similiar detail, but applicable to the way they
do things?
For the PC, the following metrics are already available:
+ number of proposals received
+ number of proposals rejected, broken down into various categories
+ number of proposals accepted
+ length of CFP
+ meeting survey results
+ meeting attendance, broken down into various categories
For example, for NANOG 38 the first three were in Steve's
presentation to the community meeting in St Louis, the CFP mechanics
are naturally public, and the last two are published regularly by Merit.
I have heard plenty of support for the idea of publishing attendance
details for the PC telephone calls (e.g. so that the community can
see who is participating on the calls). I've heard nobody speak
against that idea.
I don't hear support for publishing the ratings of individual
submissions.
Neither do I and I don't support that. It's from the stale bag
of metrics we occasionally discuss. I do support matching survey
ratings to PC ratings of presented talks though. Even if it's
anonymous matching. That seems like a powerful metric to reach
a goal of delivering what "they" want.
Here's the last talk I could find from PC.
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/060604.stevefeldman.pdf
So anyway, perhaps the question is not whether there ought to be
metrics (there are, and should be, so say all) but really (a) how
should we interpret those metrics? and (b) what metrics are useful in
the ongoing quest to build a (better, more relevant) programme?
No argument here. Thanks for the response.
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
