Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
479 lines (391 loc) · 14.6 KB

4.md

File metadata and controls

479 lines (391 loc) · 14.6 KB
Raw

Parameters and Inputs

Name Value
JOY_BUDGET 2,000,000 (0.2% ~USD 120,000)
REFERRER_JOY 1000 (~USD 60)
REFERREE_JOY 1000 (~USD 60)
tJOY_BUDGET 90,000,000
USD_SUBSIDY USD 2000
CAP JOY 15,000 (~USD 9,000)
COUNCIL_tJOY_REWARD 2,016,000 (10,080,000 in total) 
NETWORK_PERFORMANCE_SCORE = [
BUILDER_SCORE*B_W +
CONTENT_SCORE*C_W +
DISTRIBUTOR_SCORE*D_W +
FORUM_SCORE*F_W +
HR_SCORE*HR_W +
MARKETER_SCORE*M_W +
STORAGE_SCORE*S_W +
SUMMARY_SCORE*SU_W +
PLAN_SCORE*P_W +
LO_W*LEAD_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE
]/((B_W + C_W + D_W + F_W + HR_W + S_W + M_W + SU_W + P_W + LO_W)*2^N)

Results

Metric Weight Score
BUILDER_SCORE 4 0.433
CONTENT_SCORE 2 0.200
DISTRIBUTOR_SCORE 5 0.749
FORUM_SCORE 1 0.925
HR_SCORE 4 0.529
STORAGE_SCORE 5 0.575
PLAN_SCORE 1 0.750
HANDOVER_SCORE 1 0.900
SUMMARY_SCORE 1 0.300
LEAD_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 0* 0.000
Catastrophic Errors NA Not Found
NETWORK_PERFORMANCE_SCORE NA 0.573
* Set to 0 - see comment.

Grading by Group

General notes:

  • The GENERAL_WG_SCORE score will, starting from next scoring period, be graded much more strictly in general.
    • Council should enforce a template for plans and summaries
    • Push the groups on deadlines
    • Make sure the body of the plan + summary is posted on the forum
      • It's fine if some extra statistics, and the WG specific reports are not
  • Many groups will see significant changes to their metrics.
    • If the WG Leads, or the Council, has inputs - now would be the time.
  • There will be some inconsistency on how grading is applied. This may be unfair to the Leads (ref keeping the role), but for the Council it doesn't really matter, as it can't be inconsistent one way.

Council

PLAN_SCORE

  • No clear plan found, just high level bullet points
  • Not clear where the plan ends, and the summary begins
  • Some nice stats
  • Can't punish much, due to slow feedback
  • Will be much stricter 0.75

SUMMARY_SCORE

  • Spending mostly correct, but some are a bit off.
  • Not clear if any leads were hired/fired/slashed.
  • No feedback, suggestions or recommendations (in written form, more in calls) 0.3

HANDOVER_SCORE

  • Good turnout!
  • No agenda presented 0.9

LEAD_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE

  • No Leads hired, but error in formulae

Builders

BUILDER_SCORE = [GENERAL_WG_SCORE + REPORT_SCORE + TESTING_SCORE + DEVELOPMENT_SCORE]/4
= [0.933 + 0.8 + 0 + 0]/4 = 0.433

GENERAL_WG_SCORE

GENERAL_SCORE = [SUMMARY_SCORE + PLAN_SCORE + WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE]/(3*2^{N+M})
= 0.933

Note: the PLAN_SCORE and WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE was weighted to 0, so not included unless positive.

  • SUMMARY_SCORE There are 9 bullet points to address.
  • All but two issues addressed
  • Data appears to be correct
  • Posted on the forum
  • Initially published on time, minor edits only after 0.9
  • PLAN_SCORE
  • Posted on the forum.
  • Late, but no punishment for that. 1
  • WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 1

General:

  • Request templates (from the Council)
  • Make forum posts, as required.
  • Please separate the plan, the summary and report in different documents

REPORT_SCORE

  • Almost everything addressed
  • Missing a time estimate for the work completed, which is very useful for adjusting the targets
  • Although many other groups has gotten feedback that the reports should be separate, it's rather clear what is what 0.8

TESTING_SCORE

TESTING_SCORE:
  If ISSUES_TESTED >= 20:     1
  If 5 < ISSUES_TESTED < 20:  1-((20-ISSUES_TESTED)/15)
  If ISSUES_TESTED =< 5:      0

Only one issue tested. It may be that the targets has to be reduced, but still 0.

DEVELOPMENT_SCORE

DEVELOPMENT_SCORE:
  If STORY_POINTS >= 15:      1
  If 5 < STORY_POINTS < 15:  1-((15-STORY_POINTS)/10)
  If STORY_POINTS =< 5:      0

5 SP points achieved. Looks like it was merged a while back. It may be that the targets has to be reduced, but still 0.

Content

CONTENT_SCORE = [GENERAL_WG_SCORE + REPORT_SCORE + FEATURING_SCORE + MODERATION_SCORE]/(4*2^{N})
= [0.1 + 0.2 + 0 + 0.5]/4 = 0.2

GENERAL_WG_SCORE

GENERAL_SCORE = [SUMMARY_SCORE + PLAN_SCORE + WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE]/(3*2^{N+M})
= 0.1

Note: the PLAN_SCORE and WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE was weighted to 0, so not included unless positive.

  • SUMMARY_SCORE There are 9 bullet points to address.
  • Nothing really addressed.
  • Forum post made!
  • Impossible to read 0.15

Last updated:

  • Within the hour of writing

  • PLAN_SCORE Not found 0

  • WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 0

General:

  • Request templates (from the Council)
  • Please separate the plan, the summary and report in different documents

REPORT_SCORE

This may have been attempted, but not clear what is addressed.

  • Failed videos embedded - list is better?
  • Statistics is hard to read:
    • Downloaded? 0.2

FEATURING_SCORE

No indication anything was done or attempted.

MODERATION_SCORE

No censoring done, no indication it has been attempted. No spot check done, so grading will simply be set to 0.5.

0.5

Distributors

DISTRIBUTOR_SCORE = [GENERAL_WG_SCORE + REPORT_SCORE + THUMBNAIL_SCORE + PLAYABLITIY_SCORE + SERVICE_SCORE]/(5^{N})
= [0.6 + 0.15 + 1 + 1 + 0.997]/5 = 0.7494

GENERAL_WG_SCORE

GENERAL_SCORE = [SUMMARY_SCORE + PLAN_SCORE + WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE]/(3*2^{N+M})
= 0.6

Note: the PLAN_SCORE and WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE was weighted to 0, so not included unless positive.

  • SUMMARY_SCORE There are 9 bullet points to address.
  • Only 2 was somewhat addressed, whereas a couple more implies (no slashes/firings)
  • Incorrect spending
  • No forum post
  • Hard to read 0.2

Last updated:

  • 23.04.2022 - 08:36 (CET)

  • PLAN_SCORE Not found 0

  • WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 1

General:

  • Request templates (from the Council)
  • Make forum posts, as required.
  • Please separate the plan, the summary and report in different documents

REPORT_SCORE

Almost nothing addressed, much less clearly. 0.15

THUMBNAIL_SCORE

  avg_rendering = Zigma[max((2000-avg_rendering_time_i)/1000,1)]/i
  max_rendering_score = max((3000-avg_rendering_time_i/1000),1)

  # finally
  THUMBNAIL_SCORE = 0.6*avg_rendering + 0.4*max_rendering_score

Found (all performed 26.04):

  • avg_rendering_time: 271ms
  • max_rendering_time: 963ms
THUMBNAIL_SCORE = 0.6*avg_rendering + 0.4*max_rendering_score
= 0.6*1 + 0.4*1 = 1

PLAYABLITIY_SCORE

avg_configured_sources_score = Zigma[max(avg_configured_sources_i-2.5,1)]/i
  min_configured_sources_score = Zigma[max(min_configured_sources-2,1)]/i
  unavailable_distributors_score = Zigma[max(1-unavailable_distributors_i,1)]/i

  # finally
  PLAYABLITIY_SCORE = 0.3*(avg_configured_sources_score + min_configured_sources_score) + 0.4*unavailable_distributors_score

Note that this will be changed in the future, as it turns out to be a flawed metric.

SERVICE_SCORE

  avg_download_ratio_score = Zigma[max(avg_download_ratio_i-1,1)]/i
  min_download_ratio_score = Zigma[max(min_download_ratio_i-0.5,1)]/i
  avg_buffering_score = Zigma[max((5-avg_buffering_i)/3,1)]/i
  max_buffering_score = Zigma[max((10-max_buffering_i)/6,1)]/i

  # finally
  service_score = 0.25*(avg_download_ratio_score + min_download_ratio_i + avg_buffering_i + max_buffering_i)

Found (all performed 26.04):

  • avg_download_ratio_score: 554.8 *
  • min_download_ratio_score: 17.6 *
  • avg_buffering: 2303ms -> 2039ms (after outliers removed) **
  • max_buffering: 13937ms -> 3938ms (after outliers removed) **

* Downloaded videos 3 videos from 14 different distributor nodes. ** 14 distributor nodes were tested 5 times each. Removed outliers if > 25% higher than the other result for the node.

service_score = 0.25(1 + 1 + 0.987 + 1) = 0.997

Forum

FORUM_SCORE = [GENERAL_WG_SCORE + REPORT_SCORE + MODERATION_SCORE + NOTIFICATION_SCORE]/(4^{N})
= [0.7 + 1 + 1 + 1]/4 = 0.925

GENERAL_WG_SCORE

GENERAL_SCORE = [SUMMARY_SCORE + PLAN_SCORE + WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE]/(3*2^{N+M}) = 0.7
=

Note: the PLAN_SCORE and WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE was weighted to 0, so not included unless positive.

  • SUMMARY_SCORE There are 9 bullet points to address.
  • Most were addressed
  • Spending incorrect
  • Timely, and posted on the forum
  • Clean presentation 0.7

  • PLAN_SCORE Not found 0

  • WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 0

REPORT_SCORE

Everything addressed. 1

MODERATION_SCORE

  • No spot checks performed.
  • Two actions taken
    • both highlighted with context 1

NOTIFICATION_SCORE

Not clear if anything called for it. Bad metric. 1

HR

HR_SCORE = [GENERAL_WG_SCORE + REPORT_SCORE + GREETING_SCORE + BOUNTY_GENERATION_SCORE]/(4^{N})
= [0.75 + 0.7 + 0.665 + 0]/4 = 0.529

GENERAL_WG_SCORE

GENERAL_SCORE = [SUMMARY_SCORE + PLAN_SCORE + WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE]/(3*2^{N+M})
= 0.75

Note: the PLAN_SCORE and WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE was weighted to 0, so not included unless positive.

  • SUMMARY_SCORE There are 9 bullet points to address.
  • Many was somewhat addressed, whereas a couple more implies (no slashes/firings)
  • Forum post made!
  • Hard to read 0.5

Last updated:

  • 25.04.2022 - 18:59:00 (CET)

  • PLAN_SCORE Not found 0

  • WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 1

General:

  • Request templates (from the Council)
  • Please separate the plan, the summary and report in different documents

REPORT_SCORE

= 0.70

The report submitted by the HR Working Group met some of the requirements outlined, particularly in the tracking of greeting activity.

However, due to the lack of bounties created, no information on bounties is offered in the report. Since this is the principal focus of HR reports, the report is substantially weakened.

It was not necessary to create bounties as part of onboarding in this period. And phrases such as these seem to misunderstand the purpose of the working group.

GREETING_SCORE

TIMELINESS_SCORE = max(delta_t_a/10,1)

GREETING_SCORE = (TIMELINESS_SCORE + ONBOARDING_SCORE)/2
= (0.65+0.68)/2 = 0.665

TIMELINESS_SCORE

  • Instead of using this formula, which it became apparent was not comprehensible for WG members, an analysis of the average response time was performed.
  • Not all new joiners were responded to promptly during this Council Period, and some were not responded to at all.
  • The average (mean) response time for messages in the #start-here channel exceeded 10 minutes. Ideally responses should be instant during working hours, so this is a poor result. -> 0.65

ONBOARDING_SCORE

  • Since some issues with the CRM and permissions prevented certain integrators from adding new participants.
  • But there was also to some degree a lack of initiative in adding new people even given the limitations and seeking the permissions required. -> 0.68

BOUNTY_SCORE

There was no evidence that this task had been addressed in a meaningful way by the working group, consequently, the score is zero. -> 0

Storage

STORAGE_SCORE = [GENERAL_WG_SCORE + REPORT_SCORE + MAINTENANCE_SCORE + UPLOAD_SCORE]/(4^{N})
= [0.3 + 1 + 1 + 0]/4 = 0.575

GENERAL_WG_SCORE

GENERAL_SCORE = [SUMMARY_SCORE + PLAN_SCORE + WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE]/(3*2^{N+M})
= 0.3

Note: the PLAN_SCORE and WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE was weighted to 0, so not included unless positive.

  • SUMMARY_SCORE There are 9 bullet points to address.
  • Only 3 was somewhat addressed, whereas a couple more implies (no slashes/firings)
  • No forum post
  • Hard to read 0.3

Last updated:

  • 23.04.2022 - 13:22:00 (CET)

  • PLAN_SCORE Not found 0

  • WORKER_OPPORTUNITIES_SCORE 0

General:

  • Request templates (from the Council)
  • Make forum posts, as required.
  • Please separate the plan, the summary and report in different documents

REPORT_SCORE

Data not verified, but looks like every item is addressed in a very detailed way. 1

MAINTENANCE_SCORE

  dynamic_configuration_score = Zigma[max(dynamic_configuration_i-3,1)]/i
# at #414743 (start): 4
# at #446400 (end): 4
-> 1

  existing_bag_configuration_score = Zigma[max(existing_bag_configuration_i-3,1)]/i
# at #414743: 4
# at #446400: 4
-> 1

  excess_capacity_objects_false_score = Zigma[max((excess_capacity_objects_i-75)/75,1)]/i
# at #414743: 19982
# at #446400: TBD

  excess_capacity_size_false_score = Zigma[max((excess_capacity_size_i-10)/20,1)]/i
# at #414743: 2000
# at #446400: TBD

  excess_capacity_objects_true_score = Zigma[max((excess_capacity_objects_i-200)/200,1)]/i
# at #414743: 7128
# at #446400: TBD

  excess_capacity_size_true_score = Zigma[max((excess_capacity_size_i-30)/20,1)]/i
# at #414743: 566
# at #446400:

  MAINTENANCE_SCORE = 0.25*(dynamic_configuration_score + existing_bag_configuration_score + excess_capacity_objects_score + excess_capacity_size_score)
  = 1

Please delete the "bad" bags, and all the content in them!

UPLOAD_SCORE

successful_uploads = 66
total_uploads = 66+21
UPLOAD_SCORE = (66/21 - 0.96)/0.04 = 0

Not counting the 42 uploads to "bad bags"