sstent/LogSeq
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

first commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
sstent
2025-12-11 06:26:12 -08:00
commit 4662fe2d3b
2327 changed files with 114173 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

46
logseq/bak/pages/Intelligent Network Troubleshooting Assistant/2024-09-19T19_54_06.768Z.android.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
- ![525.pdf](../assets/525_1725987641158_0.pdf)
- **Review**
- **Technical Innovation **
* [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
* [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
* [ ] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
* [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
* [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
- **Business Impact**
* [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
* [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
* [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
* [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
* [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
- **Clarity of Presentation**
* [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
* [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
* [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
* [ ] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
* [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
- **Overall Recommendation**
* [ ] 1 - Reject
* [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
* [ ] 3 - Weak Accept
* [ ] 4 - Accept
* [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
* [ ] Formal Session
* [ ] Poster Session
* [ ] Not recommended for presentation
- **Favorite**
* [ ] No
* [ ] Yes
- **Reviewer Confidence**
* [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
* [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
* [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
* [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
* [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
- **Comments for the Authors**
*Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>
- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
*Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>

46
logseq/bak/pages/Intelligent Network Troubleshooting Assistant/2024-09-19T19_54_06.768Z.android.sync-conflict-20250817-085604-UULL5XD.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
- ![525.pdf](../assets/525_1725987641158_0.pdf)
- **Review**
- **Technical Innovation **
* [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
* [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
* [ ] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
* [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
* [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
- **Business Impact**
* [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
* [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
* [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
* [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
* [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
- **Clarity of Presentation**
* [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
* [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
* [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
* [ ] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
* [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
- **Overall Recommendation**
* [ ] 1 - Reject
* [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
* [ ] 3 - Weak Accept
* [ ] 4 - Accept
* [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
* [ ] Formal Session
* [ ] Poster Session
* [ ] Not recommended for presentation
- **Favorite**
* [ ] No
* [ ] Yes
- **Reviewer Confidence**
* [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
* [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
* [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
* [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
* [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
- **Comments for the Authors**
*Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>
- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
*Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>

46
logseq/bak/pages/Intelligent Network Troubleshooting Assistant/2024-10-23T14_09_17.175Z.Desktop.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
- ![525.pdf](../assets/525_1725987641158_0.pdf)
- **Review**
- **Technical Innovation **
* [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
* [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
* [ ] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
* [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
* [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
- **Business Impact**
* [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
* [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
* [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
* [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
* [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
- **Clarity of Presentation**
* [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
* [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
* [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
* [ ] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
* [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
- **Overall Recommendation**
* [ ] 1 - Reject
* [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
* [ ] 3 - Weak Accept
* [ ] 4 - Accept
* [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
* [ ] Formal Session
* [ ] Poster Session
* [ ] Not recommended for presentation
- **Favorite**
* [ ] No
* [ ] Yes
- **Reviewer Confidence**
* [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
* [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
* [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
* [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
* [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
- **Comments for the Authors**
*Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>
- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
*Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>

46
logseq/bak/pages/Intelligent Network Troubleshooting Assistant/2024-10-23T14_09_17.175Z.Desktop.sync-conflict-20250817-085604-UULL5XD.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
- ![525.pdf](../assets/525_1725987641158_0.pdf)
- **Review**
- **Technical Innovation **
* [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
* [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
* [ ] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
* [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
* [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
- **Business Impact**
* [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
* [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
* [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
* [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
* [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
- **Clarity of Presentation**
* [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
* [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
* [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
* [ ] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
* [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
- **Overall Recommendation**
* [ ] 1 - Reject
* [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
* [ ] 3 - Weak Accept
* [ ] 4 - Accept
* [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
* [ ] Formal Session
* [ ] Poster Session
* [ ] Not recommended for presentation
- **Favorite**
* [ ] No
* [ ] Yes
- **Reviewer Confidence**
* [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
* [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
* [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
* [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
* [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
- **Comments for the Authors**
*Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>
- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
*Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
- <PLACEHOLDER>