Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Proposal reviewing
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-12 06:48:17
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Andrew Sutton
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:41 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Mathias Gaunard
> Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Proposal reviewing
> > Why is that scheme necessary? The score and the list of possible
> > mentors are separate things.
> > We could just select the top 10 projects with the highest average that
> > have at least one mentor assigned to them, resolving the cases where
> > the same mentor is assigned multiple times manually.
> That's eventually how the process is going to end up working out. I'm just
> to make sure that each mentor gets their own choice of proposal rather
> just trying to pick the top 10. That's not necessarily the same as the top
> mentors assigned, but it probably will be.
I'm confused (as usual :-)
Should I be commenting and assigning a score to ALL proposals, adding a
comment "none?". In many cases I don't have an informed view, or others
have said it all already. And doing this will increase the torrent of
emails, under which I am already floundering!
I'm not convinced that a scoring system will prove necessary at all?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk