Sounds fun to me. Let's give it a shot!
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I have a crazy idea that I have always wanted to try out just for
fun. If you don't want to participate feel free to ignore this
thread since this experiment will be non-binding.
This is not the first time that I've seen disagreement over feature
sets and priorities. I'm sure it's happened to all of us. There's
a technique that I use to make the issues plain.
When one evaluates a solution, they usually have a set of criteria
used to perform the evaluation and so each solution gets a certain
score depending on how well it meets that criteria.
S_i = sum_j C_j,i
But of course, there's usually no agreement on how well each
solution meets that criteria. What has worked well in the past is
to average everyone's criteria assessment.
C_j_i = average_p C_j,i,p
And also there usually is no agreement on what criteria is relevant
and so we let everyone submit their criteria and then we weight each
one by an average of how much people think it's relevant.
W_j = average W_j,p
So the solution gets a score of
S_i = sum W_j * C_j,i
It would be interesting to see what we get with regards to logging.
Any one care to try this experiment?
Regards,
Alan
