community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reviewing the evaluation process
Date Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:16:35 GMT
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Kathey Marsden
<kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/22/2010 9:26 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I can see that this is an important project specific factor.  I imagine each
> project could identify such a factor that could be given from (0-2) points.
> Perhaps for Derby it might be experience or course work in database or
> something else.  My concern is that factors more specific to weighted some
> projects go into the global ranking.  A finer grained analysis would be
> great where each project had whatever project specific factor they choose
> get a 0-2 ranking but that might  be hard to manage and communicate.
>
<snip/>

Yeah, project-specific seems like a can of worms. If we think its
uneven now ... ;-)

-Rahul


>
> Thanks
>
> Kathey
>
>

Mime
View raw message