[sv-bc] RE: concern about weighted average scheme

John,

This isn't a election, with a mechanical algorithm to determine the winners. It's just a way to get a sense of strategic priorities, so that we can carry out our mission, assigned by the Study Group, to propose our piece of the scope document saying what SV-BC should (and, implicitly, shouldn't) be working on for SystemVerilog-2012.

In the end, we'll apply our common sense about the distribution of votes, the time required to implement the requests, and so on, before submitting our proposed list to the Study Group. After that the Study Group will apply their own judgment and revise our proposal as they see fit.

-- Brad

p.s. Personally, I think the hardest choice of our mission is rejecting so many good ideas, and I think that not voting for an item is implicitly a vote against it. Playing devil's advocate about lucky bucks, let's take that idea to the extreme for sake of argument. Suppose I convinced everyone that Mantis item 5689, say, was by far the most important item, and we all voted only for it, then what would we report to the Study Group? "Dear Study Group, SV-BC proposes to work on only one Mantis item for this revision."
  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Havlicek John-R8AAAU
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:25 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] concern about weighted average scheme

Hi Folks:

I have some concern about the weighted average scheme for scoring the
results of everyone's prioritizations.

I had hoped that we would each be given a mass to distribute (like the
lucky bucks doled out by Karen Pieper in the requirements gathering
meeting) and that we could each distribute our mass as we saw fit.

With the current scheme, if I have high priority on only a few items,
there is no way for me to focus my mass on those items. Essentially, my
input no longer counts.

Can the mechanism be amended in some way to avoid this prejudice against
persons with small numbers of items of key interest?

Best regards,

John Havlicek

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.