[awards-program] meeting today

[Bonnie Corwin]

Jesse Silver wrote:
> Alta and I would like to hold a meeting at 4pm PT today, but we want to 
> make sure other people can join us.
> 
> Anyone planning on joining today at 4pm?
> _______________________________________________
> awards-program mailing list
> awards-program at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/awards-program

I can't make a 4pm PST meeting today.

WRT the draft legal document:

Section 4: SUBMISSION

"execute on an OpenSolaris-based operating environment" - I assume a 
binary can be x86- or SPARC-only based on this requirement?  If so, does 
that impact judging at all?  If someone submits two binaries that run on 
both platforms, is that a plus?  Extra points?  Doesn't matter?

If binary-only can be submitted, what do judges look for?  Do you win if 
the binary simply runs?  If source is also submitted, how is that 
judged?  Is there a way to judge how 'cool' an application is or how 
useful or what kind of void it would fill in the OpenSolaris world?

"reasonable documentation" - I suggest we define what we expectinstead 
of saying 'manual page' or 'reasonable documentation' - neither term is 
specific enough.  I believe we're looking for documentation that will 
enable the judges to judge the entry: we're looking for technical 
documentation that explains what the software does, how to run it, what 
results to expect, etc.  And a submission will have less chance of 
winning if the judges can't figure out what it is or how to run/use it.

Do we need/want any criteria about non-code submissions?  Do we want 
documentation in a particular format?  If translations are admitted, 
what happens if we get a translation in a language for which we can't 
find people qualified to judge?  If a video is submitted, do we want a 
tape or a DVD or either?  Any length to the videos?  Any criteria for 
subject matter?  I'm assuming we will judge non-code categories of 
submissions based on the specific criteria for the category.  But that 
means the criteria have to be defined for each category of entry.

I'm honestly not trying to nit-pick here - I'm just thinking about what 
I'd want to know if I was considering submitting an entry.

FWIW, I think we do need to spell out exactly where and how submissions 
are made.

Section 5: JUDGING

If binaries can be submitted without source code, how do we judge 
"quality of code/technical implementation" that is listed here as a 
judging criteria?  How do we judge "difficulty of technical 
implementation" without code?

I think this bullet is part of 'JUDGING' - the bullet that starts with 
"In the event of a tie".  It says the highest score in "Difficulty of 
Technical Implementation" category will win.  This implies that each 
sub-bullet under 'Value Proposition' is an area that will be judged for 
each entry.  If so, that needs to be clear, and it needs to be clear 
whether they are weighted or simply added up or what.  And what do we do 
about non-code entries for which this category may not even apply?

We list a grand prize and second and third prizes.  I like the idea of 
different values of prizes, but what are they for?  If we get videos and 
apps and device drivers and bug fixes and new operating system 
technology and documentation and translations of docs or site pages or a 
new website design or whatever - how do we decide which get which level 
of prize?

All of this makes me think we should discuss narrowing the scope - 
providing a set of categories with detail about what is being requested 
and how submissions will be judged.  If we don't get any entries in a 
category, I guess that's ok.

Apologies if I am going over ground covered before break.

Bonnie