Has anyone tried a test of something as simple as "per line of code" / function?
Meaning that each "function" or "module" could have a % value associated with it (set by many users average rating) And then simply giving credit by line of code input. Anyone writing cruddy long code would initially have some credits, but as someone else rewrote it in better code the inflated original code and credit would disappear, and more credit would go to more "worthy" modules of the code. With a Wiki-style ability to easily see the history and changes, you could prevent abuse of the system as well. People could easily look over the code itself, and the modules, the style, without ever knowing exactly who did it, and rate it without rating the "person" behind it. James Ratcliff "YKY (Yan King Yin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/11/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to temporarily ignore my doubts about accurate assessments to > try to get my initial question answered yet again. > > Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions? I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me correct by saying: it *is* to your advantage to exaggerate your contributions, but your peers won't allow it. The origin of the confusion is re point (B), which is not essential. Can I skip the explanation of that? 'Cause I don't want to make the scheme sound overly complicated. YKY --------------------------------- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
