[SoC] Voting policy

[Lukas Renggli]

Ok, good to know. Then I have to fix my votes.

On 4/8/08, Matthew Fulmer <tapplek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that the voting period has begun, I think we should create a
>  few voting policies. I voted and commented on every application,
>  so you can use what I did as an example. Here are the rough
>  guidelines I tried to follow:
>
>  - I voted on every project with an interested mentor
>  - I gave between +4 and -1 for enthusiasm
>  - I gave between +4 and 1 for project benefit to squeak (a project can
>   never have non-positive utility)
>  - I gave between 0 and -3 for misc deductions, such as:
>   - The project is too big: -2
>   - The project is not described well enough, or too research-y:
>     -1
>   - The student is overqualified: -1 or -2
>
>  Overall, my cumulative votes fell between +6 and -1.
>
>
>  --
>  Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
>  _______________________________________________
>  SoC mailing list
>  SoC at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>  http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/soc
>


-- 
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch