On 9 April 2012 13:58, Bastien
<address@hidden> wrote:
Hi all,
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <
address@hidden> writes:
> 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
>
> Thus we can safely say the amazing should be at least 10, and
> recommended be 14?
amazing projects, we will have to give one slot per project.
I suggest mentors review all projects (as we are supposed to do,
right?), rate them 5 if they find them "amazing", and below five
otherwise.
"Amazing projects" will be the ones with only-5 votes. If we
have less than 5 amazing projects, let's get to another threshold,
and pick up projects with lower notes.
What do you think?
As rightly said by Nikos earlier in this thread, and I quote ,
"This would, however, prevent mentors from a project to select their
"amazing" by putting 5, and the rest with 4, as someone unrelated could
upvote/downvote one."
Also, some of our students have been communicating with us for some time now and even submiting patches, and their proposals would be a bit technical and focused. In that case, the evaluation of a mentor who is from another org(and maybe doesnt know about the particular org's project too well) might not add to the *qualitative* weight of the vote.
--