Re: slots request

[Janek Warchoł]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 04/07/2012 08:32 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
>
>>> Should then each project rank 1 "amazing" idea with 5, and the rest
>>> acceptable with 4?
>> it sounds like a good idea if we can have a sub-rating for proposals
>> to the same project.
>
>
> Currently there are many applications with no votes is because,
> probably, no-one is interested to mentor. The voted with mark over 4
> proposals are 16. From them 3 had no mentor.
>
> The ones that have a mentor are distributed as:
>
> Octave: 1
> Emacs-orgmode: 3
> Gnu Radio: 1
> Bison: 1
> Gnucap: 1
> Slib: 1
> Gnutls: 2
> recutils: 1
> automake: 1
> gnowsys: 2

LilyPond has one student (me) with two proposals and 3 mentors.  I
don't know why this isn't in the system, though; i know that my
mentors requested being accepted as GNU mentors.  Did you accept them?

> Thus we can safely say the amazing should be at least 10, and
> recommended be 14?

Hmm.  While i'd love having 1 project from each package marked as
amazing, will Google treat us seriously if we specify our lower
threshold so close to the upper threshold?  I think they expect these
numbers to differ at least by a factor of 2, probably more.  Note that
they explicitly say "absolutely most amazing proposals".  Of course
it's hard for an umbrella organization such as GNU to decide between
packages...

best,
Janek