As already was said, "punishment" is not very good term. It's just a designation of complex of deeds to diminish damage that broken host could do to project to that it connected, no more. No ethical sense here. Moreover, some message to user could help if user is reachable. But this complex of measures should also work with unmanaged hosts. So, some quota that limits work fetch for broken host is needed definitely. The question is how to impose this in a way it will not deny perfectly working hosts from doing as much work as they can.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Elliott" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] host punishment mechanism revisited > If you outline the book Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, et al. (1970). > Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York, > McGraw-Hill, > you will find that all 19 chapters fit neatly into 4 categories: > Selection, > motivation, training and development, and psychology. The words > punishment, > punish, punishing, etc., do not appear in the chapter titles or in the > index. This is in line with our > Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian-Anglo-American > heritage and is congruent with the distinction between the Old and New > Testaments: In the former God wiped out the population with a flood, > visited > people with plagues, and turned people into pillars of salt when they > sinned, whereas in the latter he sends his son(s) to show people how to > solve their problems. > > If you go through a pending credit list you will probably find several > instances where users have simply abandoned s...@home leaving hundreds if > not thousands of work units unprocessed. De-select them; if they come > back > after a month or two, fine. If they don't, that is fine too. The same > treatment should be accorded to the person who day after day returns > nothing > but errors. I don't see any other way to protect the system against > people > who intend harm or simply don't care. > > As for people who error-out hundreds of work units, they have a problem, > and > punishing them is not going to fix it nor earn you any goodwill. A > message > telling them that the problem is almost certainly due to a bad video card, > bad memory, or overclocking and giving a URL to a page describing basic > hardware debugging techniques (e.g., substitute a known-good part, run a > diagnostic such as Memtest86+, reduce the bus frequency, etc.) is far more > helpful and more in line with our culture. > > We need to motivate people who do well by, say, giving extra credit for > consistency, rather than punishing them for their mistakes, which they > probably already know are stupid, or for part failure over which they may > have no control. > > Charles Elliott > > > _______________________________________________ > boinc_dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev > To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and > (near bottom of page) enter your email address. > _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
