Get Time
Search | Watch Thread  |  My Post History  |  My Watches  |  User Settings
View: Flat (newest first)  | Threaded  | Tree
Previous Thread  |  Next Thread
CAB Development meeting | Reply
February 26, Development only meeting
The following is a continuation on the meeting reports which was specifically for development only
on February 26 we had a meeting for development track only that was more of a relaxed one. CAB members and development admin representatives were present.
mess went through a list of issues brought forth by development CAB.
- No need to score down members for not including copyright information or having a typo on the copyright section
- There is a big concern to make scorecards that specifically represent a technology set. Why we need such scorecards was thoroughly discussed with examples of UI prototype and IOS community. Some suggestions were thrown around for community to develop the scorecards themselves and how that would be done.
- There was a discussion about the future of the architecture track and the quality of topcoder development contests in general. There is no reason to lose the architecture track but there is a lot of concern to revamp the track so that it could drive the quality of code and assembly contests. The architecture track hasn't seen much evolution since its first beginning there is interest for community to throw ideas how architecture could be done that aligns with modern developments.
- There was a discussion to increase review quality by using better methods than reviewer ratings, such as certification programs and Education programs for reviewers and copilots, newer feedback mechanisms and this is one major priority that is actually coming in near future. There was a suggestion if circular reviewing, where by members review reviewers, reviewer review each other, would work but that seems to have its own disadvantages.
- Better categorization of contests: There are a lot of challenge tracks and it is confusing for new and old members and there is a plan to consolidate and properly categorize tracks. (there is a search for RIA track for instance - how many know it? it is Rich internet Application)
- There was also a discussion on Bug hunt competitions brought up.
- Bug Hunts need to launch at different times of the day
---We will communicate this to our internal folks and you should start seeing them launch at different times within a week
Bug Hunt item submissions need to be more standardized
--- Dave and team have been working on standardization and will post their ideas to CAB very soon.
Re: CAB Development meeting (response to post by besabestin) | Reply
For the review specific items (no scoring down for copyright info, typos etc.), it will be good to update this section in the new reviewer roles and responsibilities

cc beastbin WillG
Re: CAB Development meeting (response to post by besabestin) | Reply
For a contest having 5 paid position & only 1 passing submission, giving final score 79.38 when 80 is the passing score is quite unfair.
One of the review is like: Forgot about contest spec. or forum discussion & "My way is the highway",
& when you look at review scorecard of the other reviewer you would come to know about, who missed what & how things should be ideally scored.
Re: CAB Development meeting (response to post by hi4sandy) | Reply
One more review issue:

But still this is unfair reivew:

suffix '1' in "scorllbar1" isn't allowed for my submission

& suffix '1' in "mCSB_1" is allowed for the other submission.
Re: CAB Development meeting (response to post by hi4sandy) | Reply