From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QW77z-0002tj-VY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:24:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2C881C01A; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5461C01A for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so4293615wwj.10 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:24:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Sch+DTPYeJ8IiCWHy0bnxjp2rlDgjObnlvYv40aKLxI=; b=g8fwkoaoi6KY2PLcUuvVPrCuYrvPD5+AvxLd+swS5BPYu4O2XS7sm3DuKbe5Rw7W4n NpsRdc2ko76kXR3YyNKzK5n9vZa1PrmbTXHBJN6L2+hJmf8SFSOKudA5NsUsXxswLU0T ZVG58xSzyIJ7ijKSnxthFrqwfEvbCObDyqRG0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=QAflX1b5g1LPfrJ/m4wjpnDZ7XMUzV5SljSsoxlnUkUpsHKTALY3vYOWmbrBoKPz04 yHvVJ+JWVFPaY7z6dhyMb7qdHTNNC5fGrxsSMAHV1BU8bazS7DIVGAR2O6SS7Ht5S1qx uxX0N265SQW6nZPGz/GUYJTylnhGsTT6/TNlo= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.24.72 with SMTP id u8mr5014791wbb.94.1307971449453; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.129.130 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:24:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DF5CE83.5000800@gmail.com> References: <4DE3D1AB.90203@gmail.com> <4DE3D2A0.80305@gmail.com> <4DEE8487.6050105@gmail.com> <4DF5CE83.5000800@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:24:09 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7VBMmUU0dILARGPD1imwk0npuxo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-soc] Re: Council web app - weekly report #3 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: c0c8b0aa686f83a7268cd13f067d6da2 On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Joachim Filip Bartosik wrote: > =A0 =A0Application now tracks slaking properly - it marks participation > after meeting (council members who voted at least once are present). > Then it calculates "slacking status" for current council members based > on council term start date and participations. Honestly, I've seen this kind of thing tried so many times and fail in so many situations that I have to say that I think this isn't the right way to go about this. Why not let somebody in the Council just mark off attendance? Sometimes automation isn't the best solution. What if somebody was present but there was only one vote and they didn't vote, or whatever? I could see some value in the thing helping to facilitate taking attendance (looking at who talked during the meeting and suggesting that to the attendance-taker for confirmation). In the end, however, deciding whether somebody slacked shouldn't be based on an algorithm - if it fails for whatever reason then suddenly we're back to just doing it manually 100%. I'm a big fan of KISS for these sorts of things. The 95% solution is a lot better than the 99.9999% solution that is worth 10% when it gets something wrong trying too hard to get it all right. Rich