Moray Allan dijo [Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:46:28PM +0000]: > We had a DebConf11 meeting this evening. Minutes and logs are here: > > http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2011/debconf-team.2011-02-08-20.01.html > http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2011/debconf-team.2011-02-08-20.01.log.html > > The next meeting will be in two weeks' time, at 20 UTC on Tuesday 22 February. I have started taking part of a seminary that's precisely on Tuesdays, 12:00 to 15:00, so I will probably miss most of future meetings :-( Still, I know I am neither localteam nor a core part of the orga team, so having the meeting notes to comment on should do IMO. This time works fine for most of you, so I don't want to unsettle it :) > (...) > * Anonymous scoring for travel sponsorship ranking (moray, 20:38:46) > (...) > * Anonymous scoring for travel sponsorship ranking II (moray, 20:43:46) Still, no salient points were mentioned in this topic. I'll voice my viewpoints. First, on anonymizing the requesters: I am _against_ it. It might seem I want sponsorship to favor the group of people we meet regularly - But no, I want to favor people we know and acknowledge have worked most and are most valuable to the project, or to the conference specifically. That cannot be done if we anonymize anything. We cannot vote on people just by seeing "Person A requests EUR1000, total ticket costs EUR1200, and he says he's doing a great job". We have to get some more insight - And being us a relatively small group, that will defeat the anonymous status. Please tell me, if you were to find a person flying in from Mexico saying he plans on "catching up with pending keyring requests", how anonymous would that be? Second, on anonimyzing the committee (the herb@ members): Not showing who casted each opinion in Penta is near to trivial (heck, even a small CSS trick would do), although it does not gain us much. If people feel seeing other committee members' opinion (either in general or in particular for a given member) distorts the opinion casted by following members, we can hide it - Still, given this project is based on trust and on clustering people working closely together, I prefer (as previous years' herb@ member) knowing who said what - I give more weight to the opinion, positive or negative, of people who have worked together with somebody than just my gut feeling. And part of the reason for having a largish team in herb@ is to shield from the unavoidable mistakes that stem from just being unable to know everybody. I find it important to read who had what opinion when rating. Yes, that influences my own opinion - But I don't feel it to be negative. Maybe in any case I'd prefer if we hid the identities by default, but still left a button in the Penta interface to reveal them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature