BALUG-Admin October 2005

balug-admin@lists.balug.org

6 participants
7 discussions

evaluation data, etc. (2005-10-18 meeting/presentation, etc.)
by Michael Paoli 23 Oct '05

23 Oct '05

Here's the evaluation feedback and numbers, ... or, lies, damn lies, and statistics ... depending upon one's perspective ;-) First, this is the text that was used for the form - printed two to a letter sized sheet, and cut in half: Evaluation Form ____-__-__ ___________________________________________________________ YYYY-MM-DD Topic/session presenter Using a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best) how would you rate the following: Meeting time and location? ___ (able to get to it, find it, etc.) Food and service? ___ (price/value, quality, service, etc.) This presentation overall? ___ presentation materials? ___ oral presentation? ___ presenter's knowledge of subject/material? ___ examples/demonstration presented? ___ What do you think were the worst things about this presentation? What do you think were the best things about this presentation? Please provide any general comments on how you think this meeting and/or presentation could be improved or should be changed: (Optional) Your name and/or contact information: Certainly feel free to reuse them ... I also made them fairly generic, so the blanks could be used for other meetings/events. Hey, maybe at some point BALUG will be so popular and overrun with potential presenters, we'll have to thin them out ... and objective data can aid in comparisons (also helpful for better adjusting one's guesses of what the general and specific impressions were). Anyway, first I'll give the items letter labels, so I can have a short table reference for them (think mnemonics; if the 1st letter isn't unique, think the 2nd ... follow the bouncing *'s ...): L Meeting time and *l*ocation? (able to get to it, find it, etc.) F *F*ood and service? (price/value, quality, service, etc.) V This presentation o*v*erall? M presentation *m*aterials? R o*r*al presentation? K presenter's *k*nowledge of subject/material? E *e*xamples/demonstration presented? And then the numeric data: avg. med. low hi. raws L 9 10 5 10 9,10,10,10,10,5,7,10,10 F 7.9 8 7 9 8,7,9,7,7,8,8,9,8 V 8.2 8 7 10 8,7,8,8,8,8,7,10,10 M 7.3 8 5 10 8,5,8,7,8,5,6,10,9 R 7.4 8 5 10 8,6,8,7,8,5,5,10,10 K 9 10 6 10 10,10,10,9,6,9,7,10,10 E 6.3 7 0 10 7,0,,8,4,5,,10,10 Notes, etc. on the data ... any mathematician/statistician that spots an error, feel free to correct :-) ... Some of the forms had empty or non-numeric values for the numeric items, those are treated as nulls for the sample data (aren't used in calculating the average, etc.). Numeric data on the sheets and (further below) text/comments written in are my most reasonable attempts at interpreting the writing - there may be at least some ambiguity in the written data (including the numerics). avg. is arithmetic mean, a.k.a. average (add 'em up, divide by the number of items) med. is median - roughly speaking, half are above, and half below (sort the values, if odd number of items, take the middle one, if even, take the two next to the middle, and average them) ... anyone, feel free to correct me if I don't have that done/stated quite right. (median is often relatively handy for seeing where most of the values are likely clustered and/or offsetting small numbers of data points that are far from the average. E.g., if I have it right, 1,000 people, 999 of which have a $10,000 income, and one of which has a $1,000,000,000 income, have an average income of $1,009,990, and a median income of $10,000 ... this is why, for example, one commonly hears reports on median home prices, rather than average home prices). low and hi. are the lowest and highest values anyone gave. raws are the raw numeric data I did check over the raw data fairly carefully (at least to the extent I could best interpret the written digits), but I haven't double or triple checked all the other calculations (although I tried to be fairly careful, and hopefully didn't introduce error(s)). The reported results are rounded to the nearest 0.1 (all the numeric responses that were provided on the sheets gave whole numbers (non-negative integers) within the requested range). And, the non-numeric feedback provided. I did, at least semi-intentionally, leave enough space around the numeric items so folks could write some bits of comments in there too, if they felt so inclined (but didn't explicitly ask for such there) ... anyway, some folks did write some non-numeric stuff in there (generally along with numeric feedback). Anyway, here's the non-numeric stuff that was written in, first with the text they were (or appeared to be) alongside, and then what was written in, ... less the (optional) contact information ... I also tried to reproduce the written in text as literally as I could read/interpret it, and where I felt compelled to squeeze in a clarifying comment, I put it within angle brackets (<>). Since The Topic/session wasn't preprinted on the forms, it's also interesting to note how folks filled that in, when they did so. Topic/session <count when 2 or more used same descriptor, and descriptor> 2 SHELL PROGRAMMING <with case variations> 2 Shell Scripting Sh Scripting Unix Shell Unix (sh) Oh! sh-- <this one may have been influenced by my describing a cover sheet I've used in the past for a packet of handout materials on this topic, where the cover sheet had "KNOW YOUR SH" printed in large block letters, with the SH aligned on the extreme right, so it rather looks like it might have gotten cut off on the edge of the page.> Meeting time and location? ___ (able to get to it, find it, etc.) V Good Food and service? ___ (price/value, quality, service, etc.) God To Exelant This presentation overall? ___ Good To Exelant presentation materials? ___ Good oral presentation? ___ (there wasn't enough time) fair presenter's knowledge of subject/material? ___ Good or so <written immediately after the numeric value> examples/demonstration presented? ___ - <a literal dash in the field, no numeric value> What do you think were the worst things about this presentation? Location at tables was awkward examples would help Time too limited - too much background noise, not a lot of visuals needs more examples, more historical perspective Hard to hear location N/A the sitting position: cramped not comfortable What do you think were the best things about this presentation? thoroughness Thorough & concise at the same time relevance to contemporary software Good knowledge, good pace Presenter's expertise, + organization of material. some useful calls and definitions for programming and exec shells. Please provide any general comments on how you think this meeting and/or presentation could be improved or should be changed: Should have more examples "real life" scripts would show usage and clarify how it all works Reserve space that's quieter and unseizable; visual examples Maybe more examples, but you didn't have time. Anyway, ... I'll comment a (brief?) bit on some of the evaluation data, both numeric and non-numeric data gathered ... We were "bumped" from our regular meeting room, and thus had to meet in the main dining section of the restaurant. So, no video projection display, no microphone/PA, other noise (non-BALUG customers) in the same room, and also didn't want to have our presentation/talk too loud/disturbing for the restaurant and their other customers present in the same room. Additionally, our being "bumped" from the room was announced, including on the announce list in the evening on the day before the meeting/presentation - so that might also have scared some folks off. Those various factors may have, by their circumstances, altered how the meeting/presentation was perceived by attendees, and also altered the crowd (or lack thereof) that showed up for the meeting and presentation. There were 15 at the meeting (including the presenter, myself), 9 evaluation forms were collected (presenter did not complete a form). Though meeting circumstances and such weren't highly similar, there may be enough similarities, and a large enough data sample set to make useful comparisons between the data that was gathered in a quite similar manner at the 2005-05-17 meeting. Other noises in the room, and lack of microphone/PA setup was a fair bit of an issue, but perhaps not as much of an issue at the 2005-05-17 meeting. At the 2005-05-17 meeting, we had three tables of people, roughly 24 or 25 total at the meeting, and the most distant table was a fair distance from the podium, so at least proportionally, there were more comments/complaints etc. about lack of microphone at the 2005-05-17 meeting. At the 2005-10-18 meeting, we managed to squeeze around 2 closely placed tables for the presentation/"talk" portion of the meeting, so it wasn't so bad - but still could have been significantly better. In the written evaluations, at least 2 of the forms received mention issues with background noise and/or couldn't hear, and there were also comments during the talk about difficulty hearing the presenter. Examples - lack of projector (and microphone) certainly played a significant part here. It wasn't feasible to try to do microphone-less talk over two tables, and also cover showing the screen of a single ordinary laptop to about 15 people, so, since the talk was the more crucial part of the presentation, and web materials covering most of the other material was to be made available a bit later, examples were mostly (or entirely, depending how one measures) missing from the presentation/talk at the meeting. This would also account for the wide range in evaluation feedback regarding examples/demonstrations presented. The written comments typically asked for or suggested presentation of more examples, and the numeric ratings covered the full range from 0 to 10, with two null responses on that item (and no null responses received on the collected forms for any other item which asked for a numeric response). It might be viewed that the 0 may have pulled the average down a fair bit (compared to if it had been a null), but looking at the difference between the average and median, it may not have made that much difference. That one even literally put a dash in for the numeric rating, is relatively indicative of examples being mostly missing, or not applicable (none given) - at least at the meeting itself and the presentation at that time. The differences in values and sample size may not be large enough in many cases to be statistically significant, yet comparing to the data from the 2005-05-17 meeting I note that the data seems to indicate or hint that: meeting time and location is quite good for folks (but again, we may have the "problem" of the self-selecting sample set - those for whom it's not good don't show up to fill out the evaluation form), food/service may be slightly better in main dining area, but ratings are close enough, difference may not be statistically significant, folks liked the LVM presentation a bit more than the shell presentation, folks liked the LVM materials somewhat more than the shell materials, folks liked the oral delivery of the LVM talk somewhat more than the oral delivery of the shell talk, folks significantly preferred the LVM examples/demonstration to the (lack of) examples/demonstration on shell. Its difficult to estimate accurately how being bumped from our "regular" room into the shared dining area may have altered these various outcomes. Not that it would make a huge difference, but also, due to our being bumped, I didn't have the set-up time I otherwise would have expected to have, and also the "announcements" business bit of our meeting went on a bit into some discussion - so between those two items I probably lost about another 10 minutes of presentation time - something that can be, and may have been fairly significant - particularly with a presentation that's already a fair bit of a squeeze to do in ~75 minutes (I think I did it in <~=70 minutes - I'd targeted my timeline more towards a minimum of about 75 minutes, and hopefully a moderate bit more (particularly more Q&A and mini-demos and examples at/towards the end). With the physical arrangements and no projection screen, and somewhat more delayed start and no set-up time, the tail end was mostly just a bit of Q&A, without really getting to show examples or any mini-demo(s)). Well, ... enough commentary/analysis on evaluation data ... at least at the moment and from me. References/excerpts: similar data collection and analysis from 2005-05-17 meeting: http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-admin-balug.org/2005-May/000032.html 2005-10-18 meeting, announcement, reminder announcement, and "oops we're bumped" announcements, respectively: http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-announce-balug.org/2005-September/00… http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-announce-balug.org/2005-October/0000… http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-announce-balug.org/2005-October/0000…

1 0

need to phone?
by Larry Platzek 20 Oct '05

20 Oct '05

If anyone on the balug-admin list really has the need to phone Dick Verna he can be reached at (408)921-1480. Yes, I asked Dick before doing this posting. Do not abuse, but use wisely. Larry Platzek larryp(a)inow.com

1 0

Free and/or cheap hosting for non-profits/user groups? ... and good?
by Michael Paoli 19 Oct '05

19 Oct '05

Anyway, topic was brought up about free and/or cheap (and good) hosting and/or alternatives thereof (e.g. balug web site / host and/or other potentially interested organizations and/or groups). Anyway, I ran across this some weeks/months back. I don't know how good it is or may be or if it's good, but certainly at least on the surface it would sound and appear quite good. Anyway, this might be a possibility, ... there certainly may be others and/or similar opportunities (if I recall correctly, I think I may have noticed this and tracked it down from some bay area user group being hosted there, and then managed to peek at the site a bit and bookmark it). references: California Community Colocatoin Project (CCCP) Free Colocation For Individuals & Non-Profits! http://communitycolo.net/

3 3

Re: [Balug-admin] [Balug-announce] October 18 2005 meeting, etc.
by Michael Paoli 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

Well, I'm rather certain I asked roughly week(s) or so ago on our "admin" list <balug-admin-balug.org(a)lists.balug.org> if we'd gotten confirmation on the "regular" meeting room, would have microphone, etc. I never got a response on that. I'd give a URL(s) to that item in the archives, but at present lists.balug.org. isn't pingable and isn't responding on TCP port 80. I called the restaurant this Monday afternoon asking if BALUG had the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room" available and reserved for our regular meeting. Well, perhaps with some language issues and confusion, I seemed to get something that implied we had the room, but perhaps they might've got confused and thought I was some other party trying to reserve the room, or who knows what, ... though I did clearly and repeatedly mention and ask regarding BALUG, and regular monthly meeting we usually have in the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room", etc. If we're sending relatively last minute stuff to the "announce" list that we don't have the larger room, and may not have AV capabilities and microphone and such, ... we might (rightly or wrongly) be scaring people off. Of course if we show up with 40 or more people (not infeasible, but 25 to 30 is probably more probable), that could be a fair bit of an "issue" if it is in fact the case that we don't have the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room" available (and AV hookup and microphone). Okay, ... now lists.balug.org is responding again, here's the URL where I asked earlier: http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-admin-balug.org/2005-September/00008… This meeting's been fairly well publicized, so the turnout could be on the largish side (presumably a topic a fair number of folks are interested in, reasonable timing of earlier announcements to the BALUG announce lists, some mention on other lists, etc. ... I think I've also got at least 3 co-workers that I know of that are planning to attend too). So, ... what can we do to reduce these communication SNAFUs?, e.g.: Last month there was nothing on the web site or sent to the lists about speaker (well, except one item that went out less than 7 hours before the meeting), so when I sent earlier "final" announcement out prior to the Sept. meeting, it indicated we had no speaker - then we have speaker show up at the meeting, indicating he'd confirmed apparently quite a while earlier. At the Sept. meeting, that we had a speaker was apparently a complete surprise to everyone (except the speaker himself) who showed up at the Sept. meeting. At the Sept. meeting, apparently no one - or at least no one that showed up at the meeting, was aware that the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room" wouldn't be available to us for that meeting (apparently they were working on some remodeling up there). I asked weeks ago (2005-09-30) regarding Oct. meeting and if we'll have 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room" (and microphone and AV stuff). Until hours ago, I'd gotten no e-mail that addressed that. Based on observations that, excepting once, we'd always had our meeting on the 3rd floor, and prior assurances that we'd not be without microphone availability again - and also what response I got when I called the restaurant this Monday afternoon, I was working on the presumption that we'd have the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room", microphone, etc., available to us. Then less than 24 hours to the meeting, and we've got e-mail going out, including to the announce list, stating that we don't have the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room". references/excerpts: http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-announce-balug.org/2005-September/00… http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-announce-balug.org/2005-September/00… http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-admin-balug.org/2005-September/00008… http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-announce-balug.org/2005-October/0000… http://lists.balug.org/pipermail/balug-talk-balug.org/2005-October/003509.h… Quoting Larry Platzek <larryp(a)inow.com>: > Dick Verna recieved a call this evening saying our usuall meeting room > will not be available for the October meeting. We can meet in the main > dining area. I know may/will have impact on A/V use I hope will still work > without the projector. I think can still have a good meeting and see > those who make it to the meeting! > > We do have important change information, Will post after the meeting for > those who do not make it to the meeting.

2 1

Re: [Balug-admin] BALUG (pre)announcement/reminder
by Michael Paoli 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

Well, we're getting relatively close to meeting time. I was thinking I'd send a reminder to the announce list. Any other news or items/updates, etc., I should add to or include with that? Anyway, I'd like to get the "reminder" out rather/quite soon (like say, within 24 hours). If there's something that doesn't make it in that "announcement" we could probably catch it on one after the 2005-10-18 meeting (unless it's so time critical or important it should go out sooner). Do we have anything yet set up or confirmed for the Nov. meeting regarding speaker/presentation? Any date changes for the Nov. and/or Dec. meetings due to timing relative to holidays or anything like that? I know USENIX would also like various user groups to mention the upcoming LISA conference - I could include a tiny blurb on that (with relevant link where one could get all the details if interested to know more). Also, hopefully we're all set for 2005-10-18 meeting with our "regular" room location, and video adapter thingy and microphone set-up - has anyone confirmed all that?

1 0

The Bay Area Super User Group Meeting (BaySUG '05) November 12, 2005, Mountain View, CA
by Michael Paoli 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

The Bay Area Super User Group Meeting (BaySUG '05) November 12, 2005, Mountain View, CA http://www.usenix.org/events/baysug05/ e.g.: http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/oakland/2005-October/001679.html I'd be interested in going, but not (at least yet) sure I'd be able to make it. If I'm able to make it, I might be able to "represent" one or more groups if they're not already represented/covered, and probably in about this order of precedence (relative to my proportional involvement (or lack thereof) in them): Berkeley Unix User Group (BUUG) http://www.buug.org/ Bay Area Linux Users Group (BALUG) http://www.balug.org/ Bay Area Debian (BAD) http://bad.debian.net/ Oakland Perl Mongers / Oakland Perl Users Group (OPUG) http://www.metaart.org/opug/ BUUG meetings are typically (but certainly not always) rather small, though the mailing list is a pretty good size. There are only a few of us that are rather to quite regular BUUG meeting attendees (myself among them), so I could probably cover BUUG pretty well if I'm able to make it. It sounds like BALUG is probably already well covered/represented. It's also quite probable there are active/interested Debian / BAD folks in/around the South Bay that may be able to cover BAD representation better than I could. There are probably folks that could better cover Oakland Perl Mongers / Oakland Perl Users Group (OPUG), but if not (e.g. due to meeting date conflict) I might be able to assist with representation there. references: http://www.usenix.org/events/baysug05/ http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/oakland/2005-October/001679.html http://www.usenix.org/events/baysug05/ugs.html Berkeley Unix User Group (BUUG) http://www.buug.org/ Bay Area Linux Users Group (BALUG) http://www.balug.org/ Bay Area Debian (BAD) http://bad.debian.net/ Oakland Perl Mongers / Oakland Perl Users Group (OPUG) http://www.metaart.org/opug/

1 0

October meeting administrivia
by Michael Paoli 02 Oct '05

02 Oct '05

For the October meeting, will we be able to meet in our regular spot, the 3rd Floor Banquet Facility: "The China Room", and have our video hook-up and adapter, and microphone set-up available? The September meeting was a bit awkward, as that room wasn't available to us then (they were doing some remodeling or something like that). We may have a fair to large(ish) turnout for the October meeting. I'd guestimate we'll easily take up 2 tables, probably 3, ... and maybe even 4 or more (more than 4 doesn't seem quite so probable to me, but if many to all the folks that have said they'd be interested and want to come and/or could/would find large numbers of folks that would be wanting to come, we could land in the 4+ table range).

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

BALUG-Admin October 2005