Meet Our Judges:
Christopher Sevy
Christopher Sevy is a Senior Network Engineer at General Atomics with over two decades of experience in network architecture, industrial security, and infrastructure modernization. A proud alumnus of Hesperia High School, he later earned a Bachelor of Science in Network Operations and Security, which helped shape his technical foundation. Sevy has a long record of community involvement, having served as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Hesperia and volunteering for more than ten years with the Hesperia National Little League. He also spent five years coaching and judging Vex Robotics, where he shared his expertise to guide students toward successful STEM pathways. His combined professional accomplishments and dedication to youth mentorship make him a valued contributor to the Hackathon judging panel.
Lee Howder
Lee Howder is a cybersecurity professional, IT consultant, and founder of Howder Labs, where he supports government, defense, and commercial organizations with secure technology solutions. With more than twenty years of experience in networking, cybersecurity, and systems engineering, he has contributed to mission-critical operations in aerospace, defense, and public-sector environments. His background includes work alongside NASA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Army, reflecting extensive advanced technical expertise. Today, Howder focuses on helping organizations design secure systems while meeting federal cybersecurity requirements. As a judge, he values innovation, strong technical reasoning, and responsible use of technology to solve real-world problems.
Luis Villarreal
Luis Villarreal has worked in the web and interactive industry for two decades, creating projects ranging from e-commerce platforms to immersive 4D VR experiences. His passion for technology began at Hesperia High School, where ROP Web and Graphic courses ignited his interest in digital media and design. His career reflects continuous growth driven by curiosity and hands-on learning. Villarreal is motivated by the rapidly evolving world of interactive technologies and remains committed to staying at the forefront of the industry. His dedication to lifelong learning and innovation makes him a dynamic presence on the judging team.
Judging Rubric
| Criteria | Definition/Range of Outcomes | SCALED SCORE 1 to 10 1=lowest 10=highest |
Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Innovation of Solution: scale and novelty of the technology being used, and/or the architectural approach taken | •technology or design breaks new ground in the industry at large •project makes a profound break from established design (e.g., implemented in an entirely different programming language, uses an entirely different deployment or infrastructure model, a major new architectural direction) •project adds a major departure from established design •code adds new twist on established design •chosen technology, design, or solution is already deeply established |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
| 2) People Impact: total impact of the idea and impact on targeted population | •the functionality provides significant benefit to the "end user" and it has a major positive impact |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
| 3) Quality of Presentation: team's ability to present solution | •the presentation clearly articulated the chosen problem and the designed solution was easy to understand. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
| 4) Quality of Final Project: judges can clearly see that that the solution (e.g. prototype, code, etc.) functionality is behaving as expected | •the team presented a working prototype, mock-up, code, or other such solution that portrayed a realistic solution that could continue to be developed (2)•adds functionality beyond that provided by an existing solution |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
| 5) Teamwork/Collaboration: team's ability to work together and contribute to project (as evidenced in project brochure and presentation) | •presentation conveyed that: - all team members contributed to solution - each student had a voice in many project decisions - students shared ideas - students worked together to solve problems (3)-all team members--every skill set is represented in the product (4)-every student stated their part of the project and contribution |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
| TOTAL POINTS (5)(50 possible): |