Re: slots request

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

On 04/09/2012 02:33 PM, Bastien wrote:


>> Why is this a problem? 
> It is a problem if we consider the Org-mode related projects 
> being parts of the same "Org" virtual project.


Could you list an example?


> It is not a problem if all projects (whether they are related
> to the same software or not) are treated equally.


Meaning that small gnu projects could never get a project if a big gnu
package is participating and flooding with "equal" proposals.

>> Couldn't each project have one amazing
>> proposal? 
> If that's so, let's find out by defining "amazing".


There is none. It is a word used by google and each mentor interprets it
differently.

>>> 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.
>> I disagree with that. 
> Another option is to let GNU admins decide what is amazing what is not.
> Without asking the mentors.  In that case, rating a proposal should be
> independant of other proposals.


The reason of my disagreement as explained it wasn't the persons but the
procedure and there rules used. Again, an admin will not have more
information than the project's mentors. I understand you have concerns
with the previously proposed ranking, but do you care expanding? Is
there a listed project which you think currently is treated unfair?

> We can set some more-objective-than-subjective criterium. 
> I suggest this ones:
> - size of the community
> - number of mentors
> - past activity of the student in the project
> - favoring new students over returning students


As I said before this is unfair for any of the smaller projects. I
could agree, however, on something like that for the additional to the
"amazing" proposals.

> But hopefully we can discuss this online (IRC) at 6:30pm!

I'll try to be online by then.

regards,
Nikos