<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Martin Pitt</b> <<a href="mailto:martin.pitt@ubuntu.com">martin.pitt@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br><br>Scott James Remnant [2007-04-10 8:50 +0100]:<br>> We've reached the deadline for mentor application ratings, and the vast<br>> majority of applications have not yet been rated!<br>><br>> Please ensure you rate them TODAY!
<br><br>Just to publish my current practice: I went through all the apps last<br>week and gave negative ratings to the 'no, really, that's crap' ones<br>and positive marks to the ones I liked, just to make them stand out.
<br>For example, we have tons of duplicates, so I picked the ones which<br>looked well and didn't touch the rest.<br></blockquote></div><br>Thanks for explaining your approach. I'm following the same basic system now. I'm throwing out some that seem to be too large for SoC. Then there are several topics with very many dupes, esp. in folder versioning and Education. Several games are propsed. Should we consider these upstream tasks?
<br><br>Also, should we try to compete for candidates that have already had offers of mentorship elsewhere, or should we quietly demote them and give someone else a chance? It might be good to have a policy on this.<br><br>
Henrik<br>