Thanks, Sam. The rubric says ratings will be assigned based on aggregate scores, but the committee chose to ignore the rubric without even indicating they were doing so, let alone offering a justification. I think this is a good indication of how much weight we should give these ratings.On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 12:37 PM Samuel Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Thanks -- I thought this had been posted to Meta, but it seems it was only emailed to affiliate contacts so far.I asked Mervat to update Meta; in the meantime just sharing it here.Here is the rubric used for analysis.- Numbers are averages of the scores given for each category by the [seven] AC members.
- 'Overall Rating': this seems to be computed automatically from the scores. Each score is converted to a scale of 1-3 (Bronze, Silver, Gold), then averaged and rounded. So Gold means roughly "an average score of at least 18.5 in at least two categories", and Bronze would have meant "an avg score of less than 9.5 in at least three categories".
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 8:35 PM Benjamin Lees <email@example.com> wrote:We are supposed to consider the analysis committee's ratings of the candidates for our votes. Where have those ratings been posted?On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 12:17 PM Samuel Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:_______________________________________________Dear NEWmedians,The affiliate-selection stage of this year's Trustee elections has started.Please respond to Phoebe + I with thoughts + preferences about the current candidate pool.I will file a single composite vote for our group next week.* You can read about the 2022 Board of Trustees candidates, and their answers to the top questions proposed by Affiliate Representatives.SJ
Wikimedia-boston mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
--Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266