Received: from mail-vk0-f63.google.com ([209.85.213.63]:36671) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eHQru-0004Zs-EA for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:58:55 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f63.google.com with SMTP id s141sf9030577vkb.3 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:58:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=CG4Apgf9d6CQAptvv4c9m8AxHxnxT2/AeKKeX+MNIyQ=; b=dbvRfPlEDPwf9MVYlhmW2pgLoJ+x0Vmbo8U0L4nmJSY/EIQJr09f8SaSUxxPzVY0e3 KEnO9lMeunFTd3lYiM+PZ9RmG3eNN40NESpjUDYKWO3TUwgOPHjfFBMwgwHfQNFNTlUt vryur+ank7xYVY4/tOOa6cChUol6vvWVP/FVQHaWPlyZlh8s/kHIj2/iuIwtE4bGkMLi n2GSOGg/dL3D2nUJM8fsPi2JW0M+eFqnxQbK/MIOdwUJhBthvatIOltDwmNSj9oQB1EZ WjWByvLZqp1PzPch10pP/c/JJD1V17j4TVfT4G0XArdmPDLpMJCaZZqto1/Is9uJpSq+ ssmQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=CG4Apgf9d6CQAptvv4c9m8AxHxnxT2/AeKKeX+MNIyQ=; b=owbDlCnrb85iC3dGL9yqJILxsi2kDRxL7UtHwgXozWp73Ffmz+obHROYEj/rNpmosc Erbq/XKfEClfx09vMuO3GeDQ9LLTyTTH04z99x2qd6r/HeRikwlXrFtL12Hp8VPWcMp1 vpKjCBqNpLlbY7yBnkXGKTgG9kIYZGaI3092dsuiTrlCJDLlRO2REt2o5TRBSVjXs+MS G+2kGKNm8A95j38bwfakovfnTikbn/qBYd6Sfdf6ahKBaGQskxZ6z44oS/FDLSNKE0ve N309poQN4gI0YZiVsNn7JCF2E2bWKDdR+uqiKWZ4Uy6577w+/h8eAChOqoAKzXemRPbn wEdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=CG4Apgf9d6CQAptvv4c9m8AxHxnxT2/AeKKeX+MNIyQ=; b=JPlxnuy4QCdqum8tT8NpmfmzD31yWiozA3wBdEHB1TyVYEuSsEoqkx4GKSsEik9GAn VYYQolsud9rMvr+kslwYNumRHrCDNPme/xSaLNyR7Dt1iRG9QjrECQkyKtVTMzhCBEC9 SkLK2pHad9LsnjQJ9mT4PtYtLzfh2yG99zk8hslfBqhLvQqSknl0ShqZoXmbBQJBPDnY 4XImv8y536qYttdfCBm3ZuwzJDfLHygC7o1YrOYGRMtW3+QxyduBLKKQAnDDOUEhvBPi ntW/bbvSjEhpgA02vc6qW461lHdLMNOWktZijsWtF3/1Mo5TtgI4T07odASZ8kih3xgn UuGg== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4v7acJFL8DnjrIHxgLu0puxWx6PMUT3vvzok63qufabywxAsWW rQMtJR2BpEByp0zFJ7i0pqA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbzYS1NjxHzeUr6X2MYOjoxNiet8OT2WOlNdC8QHCQKdQpz+kqITP1/5uin36qRHauypNbuZQ== X-Received: by 10.31.94.198 with SMTP id s189mr1789448vkb.9.1511341128079; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:58:48 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.31.151.69 with SMTP id z66ls851023vkd.16.gmail; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:58:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.31.188.135 with SMTP id m129mr160083vkf.10.1511341127327; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:58:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:58:47 -0800 (PST) From: sukender1@gmail.com To: lojban Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> <7d063690-0550-45d6-9779-3334ac8e17b5@googlegroups.com> <4aefe693-e504-4518-09e5-d82a360c333c@posteo.net> <322158ae-e6ad-49b0-9dba-0dddf71609f1@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_10317_932008027.1511341127164" X-Original-Sender: sukender1@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) X-Spam_score: -4.6 X-Spam_score_int: -45 X-Spam_bar: ---- ------=_Part_10317_932008027.1511341127164 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10318_888154640.1511341127164" ------=_Part_10318_888154640.1511341127164 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Alright. Time for my v0.2 proposal about submissions. I integrated what Gleki and Gregorio said, from the "simplified v0.1" version. To avoid having "actual experts" situation or the "anyone is expert" situation, I'm proposing a balanced way. I thought about algorithms determining the implication of each one in the Lojban project but rules ended to be way too complex, not taking all important aspects into consideration, and unmaintainable. So I changed my mind and I am now proposing a king of "merit" mechanism: - Each user can self-evaluate about the language. This is purely informational. Grades would be (for instance): zero, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 (as per CERF, with the addition of "zero"). - Level is rounded by *default* (so that "A1+" is not A2 but A1). - Ex: I'm pretty sure I'm "zero", because I cannot say I reached the A1 level. - Each user can give "language level" kudos to anyone else, asserting the target is *AT LEAST* the given level. - Ex: I don't know much aout Gleki, but I'm 100% convinced I can give him B2 level. Maybe much more, but B2 is the highest level I'm 100% confident with. - Given kudos can be changed at any time. - All kudos are gathered to determine the "granting" level. If an user gets at least "X% votes" and at least "N votes", (s)he get that level. - Ex: Gleki has 2 "C1", 5 "B2", and 3 "B1". - If we require "50% / 5 votes", then he would be B2. - For "50% / 6 votes", he would be "B2" too (C1 count, as it is greater, leading to the "70% / 7 votes" B2 score). - For "90% / 5 votes", he would be B1. - That doesn't mean one is really "B2" for instance. That means the community grants the rights associated with B2 level to someone. - Same thing (self-evaluate & kudos) should be applied to "logic knowledge", with grades from 0 to 5 (for instance). This would also be a requirement to validate submissions. - Maybe the system can be extended to other things, such as "technical level", and/or "general community kudos" (maybe others?). The level would grant access to some features, to be determined. Going from that, the submission protocol can be more precise about the former "expert" term. In the following diagram: - "[B1]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the language level B1 or more". - "[logic 2]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the logical level 2 or more". - Please note that all levels (B1, C1, logic 2, etc...) are purely arbitrary for now, and may be adapted. - "Technical level" kudos are not integrated in the diagram, nor anything about who may tag versions and edit roadmaps. Your ideas are welcome! - The current system *DOESN'T* ensure there is at least one person able to validate or vote. I guess a simple rule taking "N best graded users" may be added. @all: Your thoughts? la .sykyndyr. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_10318_888154640.1511341127164 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alright. Time for my v0.2 proposal about submissions. I in= tegrated what Gleki and=C2=A0Gregorio<= /span>=C2=A0said, from the "simpl= ified v0.1" version.
To avoid having "actual experts&q= uot; situation or the "anyone is expert" situation, I'm propo= sing a balanced way. I thought about algorithms determining the implication= of each one in the Lojban project but rules ended to be way too complex, n= ot taking all important aspects into consideration, and unmaintainable. So = I changed my mind and I am now proposing a king of "merit" mechan= ism:
  • Each user can self-evaluate about the language. This= is purely informational. Grades would be (for instance): zero, A1, A2, B1,= B2, C1, C2 (as per CERF, with the addition of "zero").
  • <= ul>
  • Level is rounded by default (so that "A1+" is not A= 2 but A1).
  • Ex: I'm pretty sure I'm "zero", be= cause I cannot say I reached the A1 level.
  • Each user can give = "language level" kudos to anyone else, asserting the target is AT LEAST the given level.
    • Ex: I don't know much ao= ut Gleki, but I'm 100% convinced I can give him B2 level. Maybe much mo= re, but B2 is the highest level I'm 100% confident with.
    • Given = kudos can be changed at any time.
  • All kudos are gathered to de= termine the "granting" level. If an user gets at least "X% v= otes" and at least "N votes", (s)he get that level.
  • =
    • Ex: Gleki has 2 "C1", 5 "B2", and 3 "B1&qu= ot;.
      • If we require "50% / 5 votes", then he would be = B2.
      • For "50% / 6 votes", he would be "B2" too (= C1 count, as it is greater, leading to the "70% / 7 votes" B2 sco= re).
      • For "90% / 5 votes", he would be B1.
    • Th= at doesn't mean one is really "B2" for instance. That means t= he community grants the rights associated with B2 level to someone.
  • Same thing (self-evaluate & kudos) should be applied to "= ;logic knowledge", with grades from 0 to 5 (for instance). This would = also be a requirement to validate submissions.
  • Maybe the system= can be extended to other things, such as "technical level", and/= or "general community kudos" (maybe others?). The level would gra= nt access to some features, to be determined.
  • Going= from that, the submission protocol can be more precise about the former &q= uot;expert" term. In the following diagram:
    • "[B= 1]" means "the authenticated user must be granted the language le= vel B1 or more".
    • "[logic 2]" means "the aut= henticated user must be granted the logical level 2 or more".
    • = Please note that all levels (B1, C1, logic 2, etc...) are purely arbitrary = for now, and may be adapted.
    • "Technical level" kudos = are not integrated in the diagram, nor anything about who may tag versions = and edit roadmaps. Your ideas are welcome!
    • The current system DO= ESN'T ensure there is at least one person able to validate or vote.= I guess a simple rule taking "N best graded users" may be added.=


    @all: Your thoughts?

    la .sykyndyr.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
    Visit this group at http= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
    For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
    ------=_Part_10318_888154640.1511341127164-- ------=_Part_10317_932008027.1511341127164--