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.
I think there are good punctuations... I will apply them. Thanks, Matthew
Esteban
El 08/04/2008, a las 11:42AM, Matthew Fulmer escribió:
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
"Querer es suscitar las paradojas" Camus - El mito de Sísifo
Ok, good to know. Then I have to fix my votes.
On 4/8/08, Matthew Fulmer tapplek@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@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/soc
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
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.
That Google voting system is totally unusable for voting. We should probably run our own. I read that other communities don't use it an just assign the projects manually in the end.
Lukas
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:24PM +0200, stephane ducasse wrote:
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.
Yes. this is just what I did, and how I decided what numbers to put. I summarized it in order that you don't have to look at all my votes and do it yourself.
The key thing to agree on is what magnitude of votes we should use. Some orgs are restricting mentors to -2 .. +2 (5 points of resolution). I voted before I saw that, and so I'm summarizing what I did.
-1 .. +7 is what I used (9 points of resolution). I made use of each score (except for +7) for at least one application.
So, in summary, if your votes have 9 points of resolution, they are on par with mine, no matter how you decide to score each project
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:24PM +0200, stephane ducasse wrote:
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.
Yes. this is just what I did, and how I decided what numbers to put. I summarized it in order that you don't have to look at all my votes and do it yourself.
The key thing to agree on is what magnitude of votes we should use. Some orgs are restricting mentors to -2 .. +2 (5 points of resolution). I voted before I saw that, and so I'm summarizing what I did.
-1 .. +7 is what I used (9 points of resolution). I made use of each score (except for +7) for at least one application.
Ok I thought that we should only vote once and between +4 -2
So, in summary, if your votes have 9 points of resolution, they are on par with mine, no matter how you decide to score each project
ok then we should all use the same.
-- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ SoC mailing list SoC@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/soc
Matthew Fulmer ha scritto:
-1 .. +7 is what I used (9 points of resolution). I made use of each score (except for +7) for at least one application.
So, in summary, if your votes have 9 points of resolution, they are on par with mine, no matter how you decide to score each project
Hi Matthew,
your guidelines can be acceptable (even though I have some reservations about giving a -1 to PhD). The important thing that I'd like for everyone to agree on is the maximum value to use. I propose not to give a score greater than +6 to any proposal, even if you don't agree to this guidelines. In case someone exceeds this limit, as the admin I'll add negative scores in order to "scale down" that score.
Giovanni
so the bounds are -2 ... + 6?
Stef
On Apr 10, 2008, at 1:34 AM, Giovanni Corriga wrote:
Matthew Fulmer ha scritto:
-1 .. +7 is what I used (9 points of resolution). I made use of each score (except for +7) for at least one application. So, in summary, if your votes have 9 points of resolution, they are on par with mine, no matter how you decide to score each project
Hi Matthew,
your guidelines can be acceptable (even though I have some reservations about giving a -1 to PhD). The important thing that I'd like for everyone to agree on is the maximum value to use. I propose not to give a score greater than +6 to any proposal, even if you don't agree to this guidelines. In case someone exceeds this limit, as the admin I'll add negative scores in order to "scale down" that score.
Giovanni _______________________________________________ SoC mailing list SoC@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/soc
soc@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Esteban Lorenzano -
Giovanni Corriga -
Lukas Renggli -
Matthew Fulmer -
stephane ducasse