Re: [Debconf-team] Meeting notes, Tuesday 8 February 2011
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:07:25PM +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > OTOH, on a complex project, I know about the level of involvement some
> > people have on some topics. I don't know about many others. And yes, I
> > do let other voters' votes influence mine.
>
> Yeah, but you never know if other's know about that person better than you.
I'm not really convinced about the "I can not see other raters opinion"
option but I could live with this. However, your pro argument is
definitely wrong. Strictly logical speaking if you say "never" one
counter example is sufficient to prove you wrong: I personally know
that Zack is involved in Ocaml team and I have no idea at all who does a
good job there or not. The person I should vote on claims to be a
member of Ocaml team. So I would definitely look at Zacks opinion about
this person and I think this is a reasonable (but not necessary step to
do). So there are cases where I know that other persons will know
better than me and there are lots of cases where I even have the
competence to decide who knows the person better than me (for instance I
would not look so deeply at your (Ana) vote than on the vote of Zack -
it would be different if the applicant would claim to be a KDE packager).
> > Probably we should rather make explicit that if you don't feel
> > confident about rating somebody, you should refrain from voting (for
> > or against). Then, a vote of 0 would mean "nobody knows this person",
> > a negative vote would mean "he is mostly a liability", and we would
> > just sponsor the positive levels.
>
> Yup.
If there is an explicite way to say "neutral - no vote at all" I'm fine
with this. But this should be distinct from vote 0 (which could exactly
mean 0 and nothing else).
> On a related note, maybe the travel sponsorship commitee wants to start
> already working at the best method for ranking this years before
> they get the list of candidates?
Yes.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: