[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: About scoring
Re: About scoring
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:34:07 +0100
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 00:48 -0300, Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva wrote:
> I don't want to see the following situation:
> Package A is large and has 5 mentors + 5 proposals
> Package B is small and has 1 mentor + 1 proposal
> We get 5 slots.
> Package B's proposal is awesome.
> Package A's proposals range from average to awesome.
> Package B's mentor scores B's proposal 5.
> Package A's mentors score A's proposals. A's proposals total scores vary
> from 10 to 25.
> A mentors don't score B's proposals (and vice-versa).
> Result: awesome proposal is out, average proposal is in.
> Therefore, I'd like to suggest that mentors read _all_ proposals, and
> score them if they are comfortable doing so.
> What do you think of it? Any different ideas?
Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem as it favours projects for
which lots of people feel like they can score over more obscure (but
still good) projects for which only their mentor knows what they are
talking about well enough to score. Additionally the mentors of the
project will also be basing the score on the community interaction which
preceded the application which other people will not know about.
It might be helpful to determine what exactly we mean by 1,2,3,4,5 and
then for the mentors of the project to pick a value using private
comments and then one of them vote that. (yes this is an ugly hack)
Or to say "two people can score" and hope everyone can find two people
(though that makes it harder for me as there is only one of me but I can
probably prod the official maintainer into helping if necessary.)
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- About scoring, Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva, 2011/04/06
- Re: About scoring,
Daniel Thomas <=