On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> wrote:
> Just to reiterate the idea I'm pushing: > > Select people that are, initially farthest from me (or from all the > team members) in the web of trust, probably in small batches, as ding > this one at a time will take too long. > I don't have an opinion on whether this bit is sensible without seeing what it means in practice (I suspect, due to mass keysigning, that it will come close to giving the people with greatest overall mean-shortest-distance, which could mean people who least enjoy attending events themselves, or perhaps people who live in the most remote locations. If the results are too warped that way, it might work better to select people randomly, with weights proportional to, say d^alpha where d is this distance measure.) > Ask the lucky victim to nominate some DD that they would trust to > allocate debian funds for travel sponsorship (this combines an > increase in trustworthiness, and an increase in network connectedness > from the initial effectively random selection). > This seems sensible, to get away from us picking people ourselves and/or only relying on people who volunteer the earliest. > Ask the nominee if they're willing, and not in need of sponsorship > themselves. > As I've said in the past, I think the not-applying-for-sponsorship-themselves point is sensible/important. It should perhaps also be applied to the victims from the previous stage, so that they aren't influenced to choose people likely to favour themselves. > Anyone that says yes gets added to the list of GPG that new > victims need to be far from, and we go round that loop until we have > enough people -- if it turns out we need more, just restart the victim > generator. > (I like the idea behind this GPG stuff, I just fear that our mass keysignings might have broken it -- it would be a good test of whether it's doing something useful to look if the results change as new people are added at this stage, if those people are, as is likely, still fairly central themselves.) > Then, for the allocation of funds I would suggest treating this as a different topic, perhaps one to be determined by the team members later. In that spirit, I won't reply to it in this same message. :) -- Moray
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
