> 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.
Is the goal to micromanage the PC or to give the PC members the data that they need to do a good job? If the former, then yes, you need to have more metrics, more analysis of metrics, more public floggings. If the latter, then simply the fact of collecting survey data for each talk and submitting it to the PC members is sufficient. And this has been done since the days when I was on the program committee 10 years ago. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! > >(a) how > >should we interpret those metrics? *WE* shouldn't interpret them. The PC should. > > (b) what metrics are useful in > >the ongoing quest to build a (better, more relevant) programme? Whatever metrics the PC ask for. If anyone has a suggestion for the PC, they can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] People who volunteer to fill roles in an organization need to be shielded from attempts to micromanage them or else they will cease to volunteer. --Michael Dillon
