Talk:Maemo.org logo contest - Revision history

imported_>sixwheeledbeast: Protected "Talk:Maemo.org logo contest": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

2022-06-25T22:45:02Z

Protected "Talk:Maemo.org logo contest": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:45, 25 June 2022
(No difference)

imported_>sixwheeledbeast: Reverted edits by 80.248.157.242 (Talk) to last revision by amigadave

2022-06-25T22:44:25Z

Reverted edits by 80.248.157.242 (Talk) to last revision by amigadave

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 25 June 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Looks like there's no opposition here... I'll take the idea to the list. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)		::::::Looks like there's no opposition here... I'll take the idea to the list. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

	~~== kzmaoaso ==~~

	~~<a href="https://buyfinasteride.monster/">propecia cost in india</a>~~

80.248.157.242: /* kzmaoaso */ new section

2022-06-25T01:21:39Z

kzmaoaso: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 25 June 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Looks like there's no opposition here... I'll take the idea to the list. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)		::::::Looks like there's no opposition here... I'll take the idea to the list. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			== kzmaoaso ==

			<a href="https://buyfinasteride.monster/">propecia cost in india</a>

imported_>amigadave: /* Submitting entries */ fix link

2011-01-27T10:40:32Z

Submitting entries: fix link

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:40, 27 January 2011
Line 31:		Line 31:
	and enter this into the summary:		and enter this into the summary:
	maemo.org logo contest entry from [[User:<your username>]]		maemo.org logo contest entry from [[User:<your username>]]
	* After the logo has been uploaded, the user should then add their submission to the bottom of the [[maemo.org logo contest ~~entries~~]] page by editing the page and adding an entry in this format:		* After the logo has been uploaded, the user should then add their submission to the bottom of the [[maemo.org logo contest submissions]] page by editing the page and adding an entry in this format:
	== <your username> ==		== <your username> ==

imported_>qgil: /* =Preferential voting among authors */

2008-06-27T07:06:13Z

=Preferential voting among authors

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:06, 27 June 2008
Line 91:		Line 91:
	::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)		::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	===Preferential voting among authors==		===Preferential voting among authors===
	Hey, I got an idea! One problem about the jury is that a decent jury shouldn't have logo submitters, but of course the maemo.org contributiors interested in graphics, UI etc are doing so. On the other hand we are getting a considerable amount of submitters, and more ar likely to come in the following weeks. Well, I'm starting to consider this '''a good sample''' representative of the Maemo community, at least those interested in something like a community logo. What about using a preferential system tool (there are many onlyne, free to use) and give voting rights '''to the own applicants'''? Voting your own applications is allowed, even to put them in the top of your selection. But rank the rest of candidates too. This will produce a common rank where the second and third preferences of the authors will decide what is actually the most accepted. Optional steps would be an individual pre-selection at the beginning (select your own 3 best candidates yourself) and a final selection done by a committe from, say, the top 5 ranked logos. The workflow would be:		Hey, I got an idea! One problem about the jury is that a decent jury shouldn't have logo submitters, but of course the maemo.org contributiors interested in graphics, UI etc are doing so. On the other hand we are getting a considerable amount of submitters, and more ar likely to come in the following weeks. Well, I'm starting to consider this '''a good sample''' representative of the Maemo community, at least those interested in something like a community logo. What about using a preferential system tool (there are many onlyne, free to use) and give voting rights '''to the own applicants'''? Voting your own applications is allowed, even to put them in the top of your selection. But rank the rest of candidates too. This will produce a common rank where the second and third preferences of the authors will decide what is actually the most accepted. Optional steps would be an individual pre-selection at the beginning (select your own 3 best candidates yourself) and a final selection done by a committe from, say, the top 5 ranked logos. The workflow would be:
	# Each author selects 1 to 3 candidates from all his/her submissions for the preferential voting.		# Each author selects 1 to 3 candidates from all his/her submissions for the preferential voting.

imported_>qgil: /* Selection process */

2008-06-27T07:05:40Z

Selection process

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:05, 27 June 2008
Line 91:		Line 91:
	::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)		::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			===Preferential voting among authors==
	Hey, I got an idea! One problem about the jury is that a decent jury shouldn't have logo submitters, but of course the maemo.org contributiors interested in graphics, UI etc are doing so. On the other hand we are getting a considerable amount of submitters, and more ar likely to come in the following weeks. Well, I'm starting to consider this '''a good sample''' representative of the Maemo community, at least those interested in something like a community logo. What about using a preferential system tool (there are many onlyne, free to use) and give voting rights '''to the own applicants'''? Voting your own applications is allowed, even to put them in the top of your selection. But rank the rest of candidates too. This will produce a common rank where the second and third preferences of the authors will decide what is actually the most accepted. Optional steps would be an individual pre-selection at the beginning (select your own 3 best candidates yourself) and a final selection done by a committe from, say, the top 5 ranked logos. The workflow would be:		Hey, I got an idea! One problem about the jury is that a decent jury shouldn't have logo submitters, but of course the maemo.org contributiors interested in graphics, UI etc are doing so. On the other hand we are getting a considerable amount of submitters, and more ar likely to come in the following weeks. Well, I'm starting to consider this '''a good sample''' representative of the Maemo community, at least those interested in something like a community logo. What about using a preferential system tool (there are many onlyne, free to use) and give voting rights '''to the own applicants'''? Voting your own applications is allowed, even to put them in the top of your selection. But rank the rest of candidates too. This will produce a common rank where the second and third preferences of the authors will decide what is actually the most accepted. Optional steps would be an individual pre-selection at the beginning (select your own 3 best candidates yourself) and a final selection done by a committe from, say, the top 5 ranked logos. The workflow would be:
	# Each author selects 1 to 3 candidates from all his/her submissions for the preferential voting.		# Each author selects 1 to 3 candidates from all his/her submissions for the preferential voting.

imported_>qgil: /* Selection process */

2008-06-27T06:41:41Z

Selection process

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:41, 27 June 2008
Line 90:		Line 90:
	:::::::One potential problem of this would be for the Jury to fight the pressure of a most voted option if they think the best one is actually another one in the pre-selection. What started as a democratic process might be ending up in flames and accusations of non-democratic selection. Perhaps the other way round would make more sense, a jury makes a pre-selection and then people vote. However, another element to consider is the weak tools for voting we have, so easy to subvert if someone really wants to.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::::One potential problem of this would be for the Jury to fight the pressure of a most voted option if they think the best one is actually another one in the pre-selection. What started as a democratic process might be ending up in flames and accusations of non-democratic selection. Perhaps the other way round would make more sense, a jury makes a pre-selection and then people vote. However, another element to consider is the weak tools for voting we have, so easy to subvert if someone really wants to.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)		::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			Hey, I got an idea! One problem about the jury is that a decent jury shouldn't have logo submitters, but of course the maemo.org contributiors interested in graphics, UI etc are doing so. On the other hand we are getting a considerable amount of submitters, and more ar likely to come in the following weeks. Well, I'm starting to consider this '''a good sample''' representative of the Maemo community, at least those interested in something like a community logo. What about using a preferential system tool (there are many onlyne, free to use) and give voting rights '''to the own applicants'''? Voting your own applications is allowed, even to put them in the top of your selection. But rank the rest of candidates too. This will produce a common rank where the second and third preferences of the authors will decide what is actually the most accepted. Optional steps would be an individual pre-selection at the beginning (select your own 3 best candidates yourself) and a final selection done by a committe from, say, the top 5 ranked logos. The workflow would be:
			# Each author selects 1 to 3 candidates from all his/her submissions for the preferential voting.
			# All authors take part in the preferential voting, being asked to rank honestly all the submissions.
			# A committe of people involved in the community but not involved in the previous voting decides the winner based on discussion and consensus. While the authors voting could be more centered in design aspects, the committee assures that "the spirit of the community" is well reflected in the winner.
			--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 06:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


	=== Pre-selection of candidates ===		=== Pre-selection of candidates ===

imported_>benson: /* Selection process */

2008-06-27T04:08:23Z

Selection process

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:08, 27 June 2008
Line 89:		Line 89:
	::::::Agreed, but I'd also suggest to let the community participate in the first round and only selected (don't know how, karma, designers, you name it) people can decide the winner in the second round.--[[User:anidel\|anidel]] 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)		::::::Agreed, but I'd also suggest to let the community participate in the first round and only selected (don't know how, karma, designers, you name it) people can decide the winner in the second round.--[[User:anidel\|anidel]] 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::One potential problem of this would be for the Jury to fight the pressure of a most voted option if they think the best one is actually another one in the pre-selection. What started as a democratic process might be ending up in flames and accusations of non-democratic selection. Perhaps the other way round would make more sense, a jury makes a pre-selection and then people vote. However, another element to consider is the weak tools for voting we have, so easy to subvert if someone really wants to.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::::One potential problem of this would be for the Jury to fight the pressure of a most voted option if they think the best one is actually another one in the pre-selection. What started as a democratic process might be ending up in flames and accusations of non-democratic selection. Perhaps the other way round would make more sense, a jury makes a pre-selection and then people vote. However, another element to consider is the weak tools for voting we have, so easy to subvert if someone really wants to.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
			::::Preferential voting is good, regardless of the number of candidates or voters. (It's not necessarily easy to set up, I know, but it's much better.) I think it should be applied ''additionally'' to any candidate reduction schemes.[[User:benson\|benson]] 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	=== Pre-selection of candidates ===		=== Pre-selection of candidates ===

imported_>benson: /* Submitting entries */ Typo

2008-06-27T03:55:21Z

Submitting entries: Typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 27 June 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:
	== Submitting entries ==		== Submitting entries ==

	* Submitters ~~wust~~ have a maemo account, and be connected and sign their entries in the wiki.		* Submitters must have a maemo account, and be connected and sign their entries in the wiki.
	* No age restrictions apply, but some prizes may not be feasible for underage contestants.		* No age restrictions apply, but some prizes may not be feasible for underage contestants.
	**Second round with age restrictions. None to take part in the contest. None to get a device. About the travel, afaik nobody accepts international travel and accommodation bookings of minors (sorry for the legal terminology) unless they travel with an adult responsible. After con sider several alternatives, I think the best approach is to offer the trip and the device and see what can accept.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)		**Second round with age restrictions. None to take part in the contest. None to get a device. About the travel, afaik nobody accepts international travel and accommodation bookings of minors (sorry for the legal terminology) unless they travel with an adult responsible. After con sider several alternatives, I think the best approach is to offer the trip and the device and see what can accept.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

imported_>dneary: /* Contest coordination */

2008-06-23T07:19:05Z

Contest coordination

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:19, 23 June 2008
Line 105:		Line 105:
	::::The work that needs to be done now is to coordinate the discussion on rules and process until reaching conclusions. You can be entering and biased and be an efficient coordinator of these tasks, as far as you don't campaign and don't get involved in the decision of the winner.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)		::::The work that needs to be done now is to coordinate the discussion on rules and process until reaching conclusions. You can be entering and biased and be an efficient coordinator of these tasks, as far as you don't campaign and don't get involved in the decision of the winner.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
			::::::Looks like there's no opposition here... I'll take the idea to the list. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:19, 23 June 2008
Line 105:		Line 105:
	::::The work that needs to be done now is to coordinate the discussion on rules and process until reaching conclusions. You can be entering and biased and be an efficient coordinator of these tasks, as far as you don't campaign and don't get involved in the decision of the winner.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)		::::The work that needs to be done now is to coordinate the discussion on rules and process until reaching conclusions. You can be entering and biased and be an efficient coordinator of these tasks, as far as you don't campaign and don't get involved in the decision of the winner.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::Looking at the discussion, there needs to be a few lines in the sand drawn to avoid drawn-out discussions. I have previously run a GUADEC logo competition and a GIMP splash-screen competition, I would be happy to take on the work for this one, if there is no opposition. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
			::::::Looks like there's no opposition here... I'll take the idea to the list. --[[User:dneary\|dneary]] 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)