I forgot completely to close up the feedback system for our talks at FOSDEM and post the feedback to the speakers. My apologies to all speakers and others who were interested! Thankfully, Marc Balmer reminded me today and the individual ratings for different speakers have been sent off to them.
When it comes to the aggregated statistics, they look fairly similar to what we saw at PGDay. The number of speakers were much lower, and unfortunately so were the number of people giving feedback. But in the end, the results were fairly clear. I am especially happy with the level of knowledge in the speakers we attract. Let's start with the graphs:

Breaking down the details, I think this shows a great quality of our speakers:
| Name |
Speaker Quality |
Votes |
Deviation |
| Simon Riggs |
4.8 |
6 |
0.4 |
| Magnus Hagander |
4.6 |
5 |
0.5 |
| David Fetter |
4.5 |
4 |
1 |
| Heikki Linnakangas |
4.3 |
9 |
0.9 |
| Dave Page |
4.2 |
10 |
1.0 |
| Marc Balmer |
3.4 |
5 |
1.7 |
| Peter Eisentraut |
3.3 |
7 |
1.0 |
And the level of their knowledge is even higher:
| Name |
Speaker Knowledge |
Votes |
Deviation |
| Simon Riggs |
5 |
6 |
0 |
| Magnus Hagander |
5 |
5 |
0 |
| Heikki Linnakangas |
5 |
9 |
0 |
| David Fetter |
4.8 |
4 |
0.5 |
| Dave Page |
4.3 |
10 |
1.1 |
| Peter Eisentraut |
4.3 |
7 |
1.1 |
| Marc Balmer |
3.6 |
5 |
1.7 |
Even at the bottom of this list, the numbers are very good! Unfortunately, the fairly low number of votes give a high deviation at the bottom of the chart.
For next time, we'd really like to get more people to leave their feedback. Does anybody have a good idea on how to make that happen?
Latest comments