Why not? This is just common sense (and some mathematical wisdom). I support this. BR, Nuno Garcia 2010/7/22 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > hi, > > Another one I sent in. > > Again not one i expect the NCSG to endorse. > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: 22 July 2010 00:00:11 EDT > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Community Priority Evaluation > > > > > > This comment concerns the basis on which the calculations for Community > priority ratings are done. > > > > The Integer scale that the staff has picked does not allow for sufficient > differentiation for those doing the calculations. It is, I believe, a > reflection of the one size fits all problem that ICANN often experiences in > its implementations. > > > > In almost all of the criteria, the decision is on a 3 point scale, though > in some cases it is only a binary scale. The criteria, are not, however > that Black, Grey and White (or Black and White in the case of the binary > selections) so the discrete scale will end up evaluating various choices > with the same metric even when they may be qualitatively different. Since > only 2 points can be lost in the evaluation, such a rough scale will exclude > possible communities who have near misses on the criteria, but who must be > marked down a whole point, instead of a more appropriate .5 or even .2 > points. > > > > I recommend that the evaluation procedure not use a gross integer measure > that will miss the nuances in these difficult and crucial criteria. I > recommend that the scale be changed to a real scale that allows for > discrimination in terms of tenths of a point instead of in terms of whole > points. > > > > I believe that making this change will make the decision procedure more > sensitive, while still providing a bright line between those applications > that merit community priority and those that don't. > > > > Avri Doria > > Individual Opinion >