x...@freenetproject.org writes: > Thanks for your kind words :) > > I don't have time to answer to all of this today, so I will just reply to the > most important stuff.
That’s ok :) > On Friday, December 09, 2016 09:01:16 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> 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?) > > (That's about a WoT task) > > Because: > > - As promised I will fix this for free as a volunteer. > > - There is significant progress on it already: > I have been pushing code for this very specific issue every day for weeks, if > not months (check your IRC logs for the GitHub bots, it's the issue 3816 > branch). While I would prefer to not get into the potential trap of promising > a precise date when it will be finished; I can say that it is progressing > nicely and I will be able to finish it long before it is due at the roadmap > which the poll produced. > I do plan to continue pushing code for it every day. > > - In the stage 3 discussion, nextgens had voiced concerns whether my votes > were being influenced by self-interest. This is the item which I spent the > most votes on, and much more than anybody else, so I removed them. I think it should stay in, because the poll should reflect the value people give certain tasks. And the task does not lose in value when you want to do it for free. >> Which fms users did you exclude? your CSVs include all votes I saw. > > The ones whose names are marked with red color in the stage 3 spreadsheet, > i.e. "poets", "SelfDestruct", "Smartyhall", "VV", "Lopp". Of these, poets and Smartyhall are regular participants in FMS nowadays, so I do not think they are Sybils. I think it’s more likely that poets is a former Froster who decided to get an FMS ID to take part in the poll. > So "excluded" means they are still included in the ZIP and spreadsheets as > you > observed, they're just not used in the calculations of the mean task votes. > > In the stage 4 spreadsheet, only individual values have been excluded, not > whole users (as no FMS user contributed there). > So there instead of usernames, individual values are marked with red for > exclusion. I now used geometric mean for the cost as an alternate evaluation, and the results do not change radically. >> 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. > > When I decided to forfeit my 200 votes I was completely OK with the decision > and still am. > You don't need to feel obliged to reset them back from 0 to 200, you can keep > them at 0, I'm over it :) I don’t feel obliged, I just want the evaluation to reflect the votes people gave :) > (and you should consider whether you want to get yourself into the potential > stressful discussion of justifying to the others why you are changing > individual votes of someone else in your evaluation :) I’m doing this as I perceive it as correct. If someone has arguments for doing it differently, I’ll gladly hear them and maybe do another alternate evaluation. If not, I can stand the stress (or simply take a timeout and do something where I don’t need to interact with the stressing people). I have nothing to lose here except for my self-respect, and I can only lose that by doing this evaluation in a way I perceive as wrong. I’ll post another message with my evaluations. 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
