- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:45:48 +0100
- To: Jessica Tallon <jessica@megworld.co.uk>, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/26/2015 11:06 PM, Jessica Tallon wrote: > I’m just thinking wouldn’t the +0 and -0 distinction in the voting > be lost if you just add them all up? Could you possibly count +0 > and -0 as +0.2 and -0.2 respectively or some similar value which > takes into consideration the distinction between the two? > Looking at the stories, it might make sense to count up which ones have rough consensus (mostly all +1) and which ones have significant objections (-1), and which ones are on the border (+/- 0s) and thus keep all 3 totals in separate columns. That might get lost in counting and merging, since some stories have more votes than others, although the variation is minor. > Thanks, Jessica. > >> 26 feb 2015 kl. 22:46 skrev Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>: >> >> I'd like to suggest the following lightweight framework for >> sorting out our 90 (!) user stories for the social API. >> >> I propose we divide them into 3 groups: Undisputed. All positive >> or 0, no negatives. Net positive. Summing up the +1's and 0's >> and -1's gives a positive number. Net negative. Summing up the >> +1's and 0's and -1's gives a negative number. All of these would >> have a net sum of votes shown. It would give us a rough idea of >> where we have consensus or near-consensus, and where we have >> very little consensus. >> >> I can spend some time this weekend working on it for next week's >> call. >> >> -Evan >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU77AlAAoJEPgwUoSfMzqcIQMP/06g6jCwW2nm2qS/Tz490HcU oD3EaPZV+f1YD06ho7NuO9um6DAz2lIhbdF5ReEp0BQwhfaoU/ocXTODs2tU0/cZ ru7jbqbRE7ghNx0ai1SXzd1wjCYFOP7uSRs7iEeQkg7xqrTdQGrTVnh/0Cam7C4J GC/XKSOTfsIrBfOkYv5ksrPji5JSzoE5DOEJQpwkN5MFkZgq7lLBS67gW+jLKJs7 WnAVNTs8eeSLUWTTrag0ixkdbJdMfocRtOOmMbj+2tUV3QZF9/jJQoc+l+1f0DZQ Wtp66mcVb09uM7tD2n+RyBxqL0M8R1kfd0Y71eF640sfYCQwnIRE1CVhWq9t+vCu dEXl7MiI7HqAsH5R9uvHa4k+Le78ugu6nu7JT6f9rphfviIZTnI5ZUb9PShP0hEa oPxiiPg33RYLz+US92tQcfuMyn6VmQoF4r/dL7Xk0Z7WVLUx6jmOnal6MG9nSKgp P1pWCYux9HYQ7kHif+Q/7uiG97iRc/5iBA46PcZe9ADCr08sFzVQrbQAQRwI9n/1 0r3DYwb+g05U6Njm/rxYqjqHLmkumEJ/GkHwmkfppZqNTSBQWjEcZZ8uFJe3giqh J2r7Df46tzR3RHNqa0MUWttkIVXKIQNP9BULkjQ8Ih2W3PMQ3yshESjCsO7sdU2R tOqvT1F/6zMiU9v9EDcr =tSIf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 23:45:57 UTC