I'm sorry but I will not follow this policy. I do not understand why I put -1 to a student because he would already know Squeak. But do not answer we do not need to get a consensus on that.
Stef
On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Matthew Fulmer 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@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/soc