On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:04, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with Dave and Quim: what we have right now is a "sort of" multi- > dimensional karma that can be used to identify key contributors, and (more > importantly) highlight the areas where they contribute - much more useful in > terms of deciding sponsorship to certain conferences, free prototypes, > t-shirts etc.
Graham is right though. If you take the use-case of conference sponsorship (which should be open to all contributors, not just t-shirts for the best bug people) we're swapping a repeatable, deterministic, open, objective and flawed metric into a non-repeatable, non-deterministic, closed, subjective and flawed decision making process. Quim has complained before about the level of work it took for Nokia to decide Maemo Summit sponsorship (so the council did it last year) and device programme discounts (so it was a straight "anyone with over 200 karma can get a discount"). Such decisions can be made easier with a single karma metric, and so although we'll save time in developing and maintaining those algorithms it will be at the expense of longer and more drawn out decision making processes around sponsorship and device programmes. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/ Maemo Community Council chair _______________________________________________ Meego-community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
