From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-06 20:54:46
David Abrahams wrote:
> Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Please send in your votes in this format:
>>1. 1st choice: Entry number (variant), Submitter
>>2. 2nd choice: Entry number (variant), Submitter
>>3. 3rd choice: Entry number (variant), Submitter
>>4. 4th choice: Entry number (variant), Submitter
>>5. 5th choice: Entry number (variant), Submitter
>>***where variant, designated by a letter, is optional.
> Joel, how do you plan to deal with tallying votes for variants if the
> variant is optional? My top choices are variants of the same logo,
> IMO a clear standout over the others. I guess it's expected that I
> vote for both of those variants?
Boris Tursky, in a private email, sums it up:
multilevel voting could solve it, level 1 defines winning concept,
level 2 defines the most liked variant of it, in terms of: "if you
vote for this concept, which variant do you like most?".
I am not so keen on the second level as we seem to all agree
that we should allow minor modifications to the winning logo.
I am highly in favor of a post review which allows us to
suggest tweaks and corections. I agree with Rob Stewart that
we should officially allow post-selection alterations, following
a consensus here in the boost list. For that matter, I decided
to make the variant optional. I think its purpose is to help us
decide which variant to focus our eyes on, post selection.
I'm always open to suggestions and objections.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk