[awards-program] Contest Organization Proposal: CG Based

[James C. Liu]

Thanks for your comments Ben.  I was supposed to send this out by
Lunch today, but had other issues come up.  Hopefully, people
will have time to read this before 4pm today.

While Ben is suggesting that we look at splitting up the "pie"
and allocating monies to certain classes of entries, my A.I.
yesterday was to come up with Judging criteria for different
types of submissions.  The idea I had was that instead of splitting
up the pie, we keep it all one pie, and all entries have a chance
to win slices of the pie, but the way they are judged varies
depending on how users want to submit their entries.

I had some rough ideas of different categories of submissions.

a) kernel modifications, modules, utilities and libraries
b) user applications, libraries, utilities
c) written content - e.g. how-tos, FAQs, texts, documentation
d) visual content - e.g. videos, artwork

For all categories, I was thinking of judging criteria based
on points and weighting.  For (a) and (b) entries which are
code entries

Suggestions:

1.  usefulness to the endusers and/or the community (33.3%)
	- competitive need relative to other OS?
	- attractiveness to users
	- usability of implementation
	- documentation
	- timeliness to market
2.  technical difficulty of implementation (33.3%)
	- depth of knowledge required for implementation
	- quantity of code, functions, and features
	- quality and cleanliness of code
3.  innovation (33.3%)
	- market disruptiveness
	- originality of implementation
	- market potential for adoption


For (c) and (d), I might want the judges to weight entries
based on the following:

1.  Publication quality (35%)
	- quality of work (syntax, diction, grammar, editing,
		visual artwork)
	- publication readiness
	- layout, direction, animation
	- professionalism

2.  Artistic Quality (35%)
	- interpretation of objective or theme
	- style (of writing or artwork)

3.  Enduser acceptance (30%)
	- public appeal
	- usefulness to the community
	- market potential and disruptiveness


The way the judging works on this might require that the
judging teams view a number of sample submissions to have
a spectrum of what the average is, and then based on that
average, to issue points from say, 0-10 for each major
category, which is then weighted by the percentage which
we will decide here.

E.g.  Someone submits a port of gmplayer on Solaris.

They score an average of:

1. usefulness - 9/10
2. technical difficulty - 8/10
3. innovation - 5/10

Their aggregate score is 9x0.333 + 8x0.333 + 5x0.333 = 7.326
out of a possible 10 points.

What do people think?

-James
+------------------------------------------------+
| James C. Liu, Ph.D.                            |
| Solaris x86 IHV OEM Engineering                |
| Sun Microsystems, Inc.                         |
| 17 Network Circle, UMPK-17-207                 |
| Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA                      |
| +1-650-786-5179 Direct, +1-650-786-5747 FAX    |
+------------------------------------------------+



Ben Rockwood wrote:
> I believe that the community is best served by integrating the contest 
> as seamlessly as possible into the existing structure.  The goal is to 
> encourage growth and force contestants to work within the system, rather 
> than around it.  Ultimately, I want people to be involved with the 
> community and work with it, not just submit contributions ad hoc.
> 
> I would suggest that of the current CG's, the following constitute the 
> "core" groups:
> 
> Academic
> Advocacy
> Appliances
> Desktop
> Drivers
> Docs
> Games
> HPC
> Installation and Packaging
> i18n
> Networking
> ON
> Performance
> Security
> Storage
> 
> All of these groups a sufficiently broad as to incorporate a range of 
> potential projects without being overly specific, as opposed to CG's 
> that should be projects, such as Xen, SMF, Zones, etc.
> 
> Each core CG would represent a category.  The Core Contributers would 
> manage and judge the submissions within their CG.  This encourages 
> contestants to actually find the appropriate CG, begin a dialog, become 
> a contributer, and go through the applicable processes for 
> contribution.  In this way, you don't "submit" to the contest, per se, 
> but rather you contribute and are rewarded.
> 
> In this model, prizes would be broken down by CG, $100 for 15 groups 
> means that prizes are smaller.  The model might be:
> 
> CG First Prize: $3,500
> CG Runner Up: $1,500
> 
> This would leave $25,000 potentially (assuming there is $100,000 
> overall) for a grand-prize, or maybe a smaller $15,000 grand prize 
> (added to your CG winnings) and $10,000 second.
> 
> 
> So pro's and con's...
> 
> Pro's:
>  * This model encourage activity within our structure which will 
> hopefully have long lasting effects beyond the contest.
>  * This model infuses interest in CG's that are inactive now.
>  * This model is fairly straight forward, leveraging the current leadership
> 
> Con's:
>  * More people involved, meaning more coordination and potential confusion.
>  * Smaller prizes
>  * Because the OGB has not yet re-structured the CG's, deciding which 
> CG's are "core" and which are not could cause tension.
> 
> 
> benr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> awards-program mailing list
> awards-program at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/awards-program