community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reviewing the evaluation process
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:14:13 GMT
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.

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net
> 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.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message