community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: Reviewing the evaluation process
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:26:22 GMT

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> On the other hand, this has been the single criterion that has defined
> successful students in Mahout (which is definitely less standards driven).
> In Derby and similar projects, I think that this can be interpreted
> differently, but it still is a useful ranking indicator.  Within the set of
> Derby applicants, this would be very useful.  Perhaps there should be a
> countervailing feature that allows Derby to be marked as "project that is
> very hard for students to be entirely original in their proposal (+1)" would
> allow a global comparison to be reasonably valid.  Or perhaps gating by
> number of mentors first so the ranking is mostly within the project would
> solve that.
> Either way, it is a very valuable feature for us.

+1.  I would almost go so far as to say we very actively encourage students to submit their
own ideas.  This is, after all, how open source works, no?  Scratch your own itch.

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Kathey Marsden <
>> wrote:
>> Is the project definition and idea originally the mentee's, the
>>> mentor's or a collaborative effort? (0-2 points, 2 if mentee's idea, 1
>>> if collaborative, 0 if mentor's)
>>> I think this one is tricky.  In a standards based product like Derby
>> there is not that much room for creativity in the initial  "idea" and
>> projects  are mostly based on existing Jira entries.  Also really everything
>> is collaborative in the community and that should be encouraged.    I think
>> I'd rather see this one left out.

View raw message