- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:28:11 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>,Jessica Tallon <jessica@megworld.co.uk>,Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On February 26, 2015 6:45:48 PM EST, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >-----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. > Indeed, something with 5 +1's and no -1's is in good shape. Something with 10 +1's and 4 -1's is in terrible shape. Summing the survey results doesn't really work. I think I'd try to put the stories into one of three buckets: Yes (consensus), Not-Much-Interest (very few +1's, maybe up to three), and Conflict (four or more +1's and one or more -1). The actual cutoff for enough +1's to matter will depend on the data. Hopefully there are few on the border. - Sandro > >> 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 Friday, 27 February 2015 03:28:31 UTC