Leader of Birmingham.pm [pm.org] and a CPAN author [cpan.org]. Co-organised YAPC::Europe in 2006 and the 2009 QA Hackathon, responsible for the YAPC Conference Surveys [yapc-surveys.org] and the QA Hackathon [qa-hackathon.org] websites. Also the current caretaker for the CPAN Testers websites and data stores.
If you really want to find out more, buy me a Guinness
Following on from the release of the YAPC::Europe 2008 Survey, I'm pleased to have just launched a companion set of surveys for the Master Class tutorials. Although the Course Assessment Form is perhaps not as verbose as the main survey, I've collated several ideas from other assessment forms to get a brief idea of what attendees thought of the course, to allow them to make suggestions for improvement, and to highlight what they thought was good about the course.
With currently over 60% of responses in from those polled on the main survey, I'm hoping that a good proportion, if not all, will respond to the feedback for the individual courses. The results will be collated and sent to the presenters once all their attendees have responded, or just after October 30th (the closing date). This is essentially a trial, as suggested by Dave Cross, to enable the tutorial presenters to get some form of feedback on the courses they presented before and after YAPC::Europe in Copenhagen.
It has also been suggested that each regular talk should have a similar feedback mechanism. However, whereas the tutorials required a signup, so we have their exact attendees, the regular talk sessions are a little more ad-hoc. It could be opened up as a free-for-all to enter what they like about a particular talk, but there is no guarantee that the respondent saw the talk. Having said that, several of the respondents have chosen not to rate the talks in the main survey, so it's likely to improve feedback for the presenter at the very least.
My intention was to roll this into ACT, but for the YAPC::Europe surveys at least, I'm not so sure that it needs to be. Having the survey independent of the ACT system (although I do use the attendee lists from ACT), and the fact that one person (me) is currently controlling access to that data to ensure anonymity, may actually be providing a degree of confidence in the privacy of comments, etc. I'll have to see what the Lisbon guys want to do, but I'll be happy to provide the same setup (if not more extensive) for the surveys next year.