[Owasp-board] Fwd: ACTION NEEDED - Instructions for Scoring

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Wed Apr 1 20:13:56 UTC 2015


Another long thread discussions regarding Criteria in Gsoc...
have fun reading

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abbas Naderi <abiusx at owasp.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED - Instructions for Scoring
To: Björn Kimminich <bjoern.kimminich at gmx.de>
Cc: owasp-gsoc-mentors at googlegroups.com


The point you’re missing, is that its not about us or projects. Its about
students and whats right for them.

These students put countless time and effort into their proposals, and they
deserve to be acknowledged for that. Its not fair to just ignore that fact.

This doesn’t mean that I’m not OK with your suggestion, on the contrary, I
strongly support it. Lets have the list of slots we need, and the list we
want, and then round-robin it using the current scores on comments on
melange. I believe everybody would be happy with this (as long as we get
enough slots overall for OWASP). If its not beneficial to the majority,
then we can devise some other plan.

How does that sound?
-A
______________________________________________________________
*Notice:* This message is *digitally signed*, its *source* and *integrity* are
verifiable.
If you mail client does not support S/MIME verification, it will display a
file (smime.p7s), which includes the X.509 certificate and the signature
body.  Read more at Certified E-Mail with Comodo and Thunderbird
<http://abiusx.com/certified-e-mail-with-comodo-and-thunderbird/> in
AbiusX.com

On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Björn Kimminich <bjoern.kimminich at gmx.de>
wrote:

If the each project lead comes up with a reasonable list in Simon's format
(Must, Like, Optional) and then projects get slots in a controlled
round-robin way (like Settlers of Catan start settlement/road positioning)
capped by their overall activity/relevance/mentor-power (->admin decision)
it might just turn out fair and fine for everyone. Yes, *maybe* some
project leads will end up in a pit fight for some of the final optional
student slots or *maybe* someone doesn't play ball and puts 10 projects on
"Must" and 0 on "Optional" ... but hey, that's for the admins/pit fighters
to resolve, right?

I see no need for the whole group to continue this fruitless discussion. In
the time invested into the drama (summing up read and write effort)
everyone could probably have filled out Kostas spreadsheet easily already
<and> played a round of Settlers of Catan with his/her kids/friends
instead... ;-)

 Cheers,
Björn

<settlers-board2_grey-robber_opt.png>


 *Gesendet:* Montag, 31. März 2014 um 16:38 Uhr
*Von:* kingthorin+gsoc2014 <kingthorin at gmail.com>
*An:* owasp-gsoc-mentors at googlegroups.com
*Betreff:* Re: ACTION NEEDED - Instructions for Scoring
 I'm still baffled by your comments about score privacy. In one breath you
say keep them private in another you say make them public, it doesn't make
sense.

We all understand that this process is taking time and effort on everyone's
part, what some of us are against is requiring additional time or effort
after the fact. I doubt any of us would have cared about the spreadsheet or
putting scores in comments if we'd known ahead of time. When I'd originally
gone through the 88, it would have been an extra 30 sec or less per entry.
At this point it'll take a min or two each; that's an additional hour and a
half, that I'm not willing to waste on after the fact drama.

As for mentoring 2 students, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to mentor
two. I was trying to point out that of 88 people there are only 2 who I
would be at all interested in mentoring at all...

At this point I'm kind of the opinion that none of this mattes and is only
be dragged out for nothing. If I'm chosen to mentor someone and help out
Simon/ZAP then WONDERFUL, if not I'm ok with that too. Aside from Simon's
original emails to me on the topic of mentoring I'm getting nothing but
discouragement, so really I'm totally fine NOT being a mentor...

Rick


On Monday, March 31, 2014 3:19:16 AM UTC-4, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou
wrote:
>
> As a personal note, I am really surprised (and please Rick, don't take
> this personally it's more of a generic comment) that people are not willing
> to do part with the privacy of their scores.
> I also have a day job, family, kids, dog, cats, etc. and this whole
> process takes me much more time than simply copy/pasting my scores in a
> spreadsheet and sending an e-mail.
> It's really hard to reach a conclusion at the moment since the voices pro
> and against this are pretty much equal.
>
> Google does not encourage being a mentor for 2 students at the same time.
> It's hard to be a mentor for a single student and this is why we always
> assign a backup mentor as well. On top of that, my personal experience says
> that mentoring a single student will take more time that you imagine at
> this stage.
>
> Kostas
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 3:38 AM, kingthorin+gsoc2014 <kingt... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't make any sense you can't have it both ways:
>>
>> First you say: "The problem is that people don't seem to be adding the
>> score as a comment and we are running out of time."
>>
>> Then you say: "Regarding a shared spreadsheet: we do not want mentors to
>> be able to see other mentors' votes before voting ends, as this might lead
>> to ranking manipulation (ie a mentor seeing another project doing good and
>> giving it on purpose a low score). The way we are doing it now, you don't
>> really know how others have voted."
>>
>> So we can't have a shared spreadsheet because we might see and be
>> influenced by what someone else voted, but we should all post our scores in
>> the comments so everyone can see what we voted/ranked. That's the very
>> definition of contradiction.
>>
>> I'm with Colm and Abbas, I already spent hours going through and ranking
>> everything. I'm not going back to comment or fill out a spreadsheet. I'm
>> really only interested in mentoring one or two people out of 88 anyway. If
>> I'm excluded as a mentor because the rules changed after I did the work I
>> can live with that. Melange already includes averages, if those are skewed
>> ... well that sucks and we you should be pressuring Google to make changes
>> to the system for next year. (Or well if similar problems were experienced
>> last year [as seems to be the case/story] you probably already should have
>> put the pressure on and been out ahead of things this year [both with
>> Google and here with everyone].)
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OWASP GSOC Mentors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to owasp-gsoc-mentors+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OWASP GSOC Mentors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to owasp-gsoc-mentors+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OWASP GSOC Mentors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to owasp-gsoc-mentors+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150401/1f4d651d/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list