\begin{figure}
\scriptsize
%\begin{sideways}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c@{~	~}l|}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{attribute}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}bumps  \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}up     \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}down   \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}flat   \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}rick   \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}abstain\end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c}{majority trend}\\\hline

&this one refers to investment in&&&&&&&&\\
&automated analysis tools. Just&&&&&&&&Divided into subsystems. Mission-\\
aa: automated&to clarify,greater investment&&5&&3&&&\textit{up}&critical: Up(5), else: level (3)\\
analysis&means that you "detect and&&&&&&&&\\
&remove" more defects rather than&&&&&&&&\\
&"gets you more" defects&&&&&&&&\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&ACAP - analyst capability, problem of\\
&&&&&&&&&people leaving companies early, everyone\\
&&&&&&&&&on Apollo retired. Though, that\\
acap: analyst&&&5&&3&&&\textit{up}&may relate more to APEX. In some\\
capability&&&&&&&&&ways, people's capabilities are improving -\\
&&&&&&&&&people are learning things in high school\\
&&&&&&&&&now. Argument that capability goes up,\\
&&&&&&&&&In some experience goes down.\\
&&&&&&&&&Vote: up(5), flat(3)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&APEX - applications experience.\\
&&&&&&&&&Development platforms and missions\\
&&&&&&&&&continue to change.  Systems continue\\
apex: analyst&&&&7&1&&&\textit{down}&  to get more complex . This cannot\\  
experience&&&&&&&&&help but go down over time as NASA\\
&&&&&&&&&engages in new unprecedented missions.\\
&&&&&&&&&Vote: down(7), flat (1)\\\hline

cplx: product&&&7&&&&&\textit{up}&CPLX - just about any kind of complexity.\\
complexity&&&&&&&&&Advocates for up. Voted: Up (7), flat(1)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&DATA -  is ratio of num items in\\
&&&&&&&&&database to loc. Do we need to change\\
data: database& &&&&4&3&1&\textit{anywhere}& scale over time? ``growth and data\\ 
size per LOC&&&&&&&&&volume matched by technology improvements.''\\
&&&&&&&&&Advocacy for flat and bimodal.\\
&&&&&&&&&Voted: flat (4), rick (3), abstain(1)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&DOCU - documentation you are required\\
docu: required levels&&&&&6&&2&\textit{flat}&to produce relative to what's needed.\\
of documentation&&&&&&&&&Voted: flat (6), abstain(2)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&Some argument that as CPUs\\
&not a cocomo factor but a&&&&&&&&get cheaper, we will see more\\
ett: execution-based&factor in the coqualmo&&4&1&3&&&\textit{anywhere}&use of CPU-intensive simulation\\
testing and tools&defect removal model.&&&&&&&&-based methods.\\
&&&&&&&&&Voted: Up(4), down(1), flat(3)\\\hline

&development flexibility. ``lo''&&&&&&&&FLEX=5 things less flexible\\
flex: development&means development process&&8&&&&&\textit{up}&than they were, pushed\\
flexibility&rigorously. ``hi'' means&&&&&&&&to a 3, Tom - flexibility\\
&only general goals defined&&&&&&&&will decrease. Voted: up (8)\\\hline

ltex:language and&more experience = less&&&3&5&&&\textit{flat}&LTEX - language/tool experience.\\
tool experience&development cost&&&&&&&&Vote: down (3), flat (5)\\\hline

pcap: programmer&&&1&&7&&&\textit{flat}&PCAP - programmer capability.\\
capability&&&&&&&&&Vote: flat (7), up (1)\\\hline

pcon: personnel continuity&&&&6&2&&&\textit{down}&PCON - personnel continuity,\\
(\% turnover per year)&&&&&&&&&turnover. Vote: down (6), flat (2)\\\hline

&not a cocomo factor but a&&&&&&&&REVW - Code review. Another\\
peer: peer reviews&factor in the coqualmo defect&&7&&1&&&\textit{up}&way to remove defects. If more\\
&removal model.&&&&&&&& people are using them, trend\\
&&&&&&&&&is up. Voted: Up(7), flat(1)\\\hline

plex: platform&&&&2&6&&&flat&PLEX - platform experience.\\
experience&&&&&&&&&Vote: flat(6), down(2)\\\hline
\end{tabular}\caption{Part 1 of the results of the panel discussions.}\label{fig:votes1}
%\end{sideways}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\scriptsize
%\begin{sideways}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c@{~	~}l|}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{attribute}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}bumps  \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}up     \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}down   \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}flat   \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}rick   \end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{rotate}{90}abstain\end{rotate}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c}{majority trend}\\\hline

pmat: process maturity& &&7&&1&&&\textit{up}&PMAT - upsies (7), flat(1)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&PREC - going to remain fairly stable, might\\
&&&&&&&&&go up in long run. increasing level of\\
&have we built this kind of thing&&&&&&&&uniqueness for some systems, increasing levels\\
prec: precendentness&before? (higher values means less&4&1&2&1&&&\textit{up/down}& of repeated simple components for others.\\        
&familiarity)&&&&&&&& Is there going to be a software crises? Maybe\\
&&&&&&&&&next 20, probably not next 10. Most don't\\
&&&&&&&&&believe we will build extremely unprecedented\\
&&&&&&&&&software, Tom disagrees. Another theory - all\\
&&&&&&&&&are 6s or 2s. Voted: bumbs (4), up (1),\\
&&&&&&&&&down(2), level(1). \\\hline

&&&&&&&&&PVOL - platform volatility. Higher\\
pvol: platform volatility&&&8&&&&&\textit{up}&volatility (more changes) = up. More\\
&&&&&&&&&and more custom hardware, custom sensors,\\
&&&&&&&&&etc .Vote: Up(8)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&RELY - downsie = less concerned with\\
&&&&&&&&&reliability, argument for flat (we've\\
&&&&&&&&&launched all sorts of space missions,\\
rely: required&&&8&&&&&\textit{up}&we'll continue to do same thing), argument \\
reliability&&&&&&&&&for up (demands go up for more reliable\\
&&&&&&&&&systems),. Bojan - things will be flat.\\
&&&&&&&&&Is rely effort into chasing reliability?\\
&&&&&&&&&RELY is actual system reliability.\\
&&&&&&&&&Voted: Up (8)\\\hline

resl: architectural&&&7&&&&1&\textit{up}&RESL - upsies (7), abstain (1)\\
or risk analysis&&&&&&&&&\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&RUSE - I'm investing money to make things\\
&&&&&&&&&reusable. Flat limited to unprecedented-ness,\\
&&&&&&&&&up based on pressure to build for reuse.\\
ruse: reuse&is this product being developed the&1&2&2&2&&1&\textit{anywhere}&Cost of building for reuse. Barry presses\\    
&with intent that it is a reusable&&&&&&&&for bumps. Some projects are so unique\\
&component?&&&&&&&&that no once can reuse them. I have no idea\\
&&&&&&&&&what's going on here. If desire to do it is\\
&&&&&&&&&high, cost will be high. Definition - putting\\
&&&&&&&&&effort into reuse. Voted: bump(1), abstain(1),\\
&&&&&&&&&down (2), up(2), flat (2)\\\hline

&lower values means developers&&&&&&&&\\
sced: dictated&forced to deliver faster&&&7&1&&&\textit{down}&SCED - schedule pressure, low=fast.\\
development schedule&than they would like&&&&&&&&Vote: down (7), flat(1)\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&SITE - how spread out people are. Physical\\
site: multi-site&``lo'' means some contact: phone,&&&7&1&&&\textit{down}&location \% communication. More people\\
development&mail; ``hi'' means multi-media&&&&&&&&working at home. Vote: down(7), flat(1)\\\hline

stor: required \%&&7&&&&&1&\textit{up/down}&STOR - see above, Voted: bumps (7), abstain(1)\\
of available RAM&&&&&&&&&\\\hline

&lower values means more difficult&&&&&&&&\\
team: team cohesion&interactions (e.g. sub-contractors&&&&8&&&\textit{flat}&TEAM - level (8)\\
&working behind separate firewalls)&&&&&&&&\\\hline

&&&&&&&&&TIME - has been going down, used\\
time: \% of CPU&&6&1&&1&&&\textit{up/down}&to be constrained all the time.\\
&&&&&&&&&Resources fixed once something is\\
&&&&&&&&&launched. Voted: bumps (6), up(1),\\
&&&&&&&&&flat(1)\\\hline


&``lo'' means just simple edit/debug&&&&&&&&TOOL - how good are tools? Ability\\
tool: use of&cycles; ``hi'' means tools tightly&&6&&2&&&\textit{up}&to improve productivity. More use of\\
software tools&integrated to the development cycle&&&&&&&&tools like stateflow and auto code\\
&&&&&&&&&generation. up(6), flat (2)\\\hline

\end{tabular}
\caption{Part 2 of the results of the panel discussions.}\label{fig:votes2}
%\end{sideways}
\end{figure}
