x...@freenetproject.org writes: > Ian and Florent have voiced concerns about whether my involvement in the poll > could be influenced by the prospect of me benefiting financially by > potentially being able to resume my job for Freenet. > > I want to provide you with a solid proof that this is not the case, which is > why I decided I am *NOT* available for hire for the year of a roadmap which > this poll yields. > I will instead finish the most important remaining WoT/Freetalk fixes for > free, as a volunteer.
To repeat what I said in IRC: I don’t think that you should step back From getting hired if the tasks you want to do are on the list of things for which we have money. You said that working for Freenet is what you want to do more than anything. Giving this up for social reasons even when the vote has the result that the project should hire you looks like deliberate self-harm — which helps neither you nor the project. (or, in other words, if the outcome of the vote is to hire you, the social action is to accept that happily — we’re doing a clear evaluation to avoid exactly this pressure) And me doing an independent evaluation of the results should already have eradicated the worry that you might be unfairly biasing the evaluation. > The sole reason why I am on this project is because I want to make the world > a > better place; and I trust you that's your intention as well. > Thus there's no reason for us to argue, we're on the same side. > > Alright, so now that all hypothetical benefits in manipulating it are > invalidated hopefully, here's my proposal on how to evaluate the poll results: > https://git.io/v1ah4 > > Feedback is welcome! Why did you vote *0* on finishing the first iteration of the most critical speed fixes?? (and why did you change that vote from its earlier value of 200?) When I fix the removal of the 200 votes for WoT 1st iteration, I get a 14 tasks which are robustly in the top 20 tasks, with finishing WoT 1st iteration part of that. These 14 tasks are estimated as around 22 weeks of development time. > README: > > - The central output is the list of tasks sorted upon average votes divided > by > average cost estimate. This is in the file Main_Results.ods, on the sheet > "RANKING". > You should open this with LibreOffice - I haven't tried with Microsoft and > the > sheet is rather complex so there may be incompatibilities. While this did not work on the other computer, it worked well on the one I have here. Thank you for including the CSVs! > The ZIP includes screenshots so you can check whether it renders correctly. > > - The foundation for the main output consists of the evaluations of the sub- > stages: Stage3_Results.ods and Stage4_Results.ods. > They're also included as subsheets of the Main_Results.ods. > > - At the stage 3 evaluation, I've excluded the votes of anonymous voters > whose > user identities have been created within a month of the poll's > announcement. Which fms users did you exclude? your CSVs include all votes I saw. > - Stage 3 says that nextgens and toad_ have voted 1 point more than the 1000 > available. This is likely a rounding error: The ballot template showed a > default vote of 15 points, but that was actually 14.925 rounded to 15 in > display (to make the defaults add up to 1000 votes without remainder). The > voters having exported their votes to CSV likely replaced the non-rounded > value with the rounded one. I proceeded by taking for each person all the votes of that person and scaling them so that they sum up to 1000. The effect of that shouldn’t be too large, though. > - At stage 4, I've excluded estimates which were at least 800% off from the > minimum or maximum estimate. I’m currently thinking about using geometric mean instead of arithmetic mean for that. Geometric mean is less sensitive to scaling factors applied to all votes. Geometric mean means multiplying all votes and taking the Nth root, with N the number of votes. Geometric mean of 1, 10 and 100 is 10. Arithmetic is 37. If one person consistently uses higher estimates than others, this persons votes are stronger in arithmetic mean than the votes of the others, but they are equally strong to the others with geometric mean. See http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=5673 for a paper with deeper reasoning. > - I've included nextgens' vote for fixing the installers (thats the one at > the > very bottom, written in italics) even though he failed to soon enough request > the task to be added to the list of things the poll was about. > People can still discuss to exclude his vote here if they think it's > necessary, not my call. > He sacrificed a big piece of his votes (291 of 1000), so he deserves his > voice > to be heard at least by including it in the sheets. > And he wasn't the only one to request it, at least operhiem1 and ArneBab also > did. I also acknowledge that the 32 bit era has been over for like a decade > and thus there is no reason to require 32 bit VMs on Windows. Thank you! > - At the main resulting ranking there is a column for how many weeks of > funding we will have left after each task. It assumes we have funding for 1 > year - which is what we promised in our funding campaign what the money we > requested would last for. For fulltime employment at a non-exploitative salary, the money will will last for at most 20 weeks. > Also only 5 people contributed time estimates, so there's probably not enough > input for getting precise estimates. Also people differed in how they interpret the task, so the estimates cannot become really precise whatever we do. So that sounds good. See my reply to toad for additional notes. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
