| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Joachim Filip Bartosik |
| 2 |
<jbartosik@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Application now tracks slaking properly - it marks participation |
| 4 |
> after meeting (council members who voted at least once are present). |
| 5 |
> Then it calculates "slacking status" for current council members based |
| 6 |
> on council term start date and participations. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Honestly, I've seen this kind of thing tried so many times and fail in |
| 9 |
so many situations that I have to say that I think this isn't the |
| 10 |
right way to go about this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Why not let somebody in the Council just mark off attendance? |
| 13 |
Sometimes automation isn't the best solution. What if somebody was |
| 14 |
present but there was only one vote and they didn't vote, or whatever? |
| 15 |
I could see some value in the thing helping to facilitate taking |
| 16 |
attendance (looking at who talked during the meeting and suggesting |
| 17 |
that to the attendance-taker for confirmation). In the end, however, |
| 18 |
deciding whether somebody slacked shouldn't be based on an algorithm - |
| 19 |
if it fails for whatever reason then suddenly we're back to just doing |
| 20 |
it manually 100%. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm a big fan of KISS for these sorts of things. The 95% solution is |
| 23 |
a lot better than the 99.9999% solution that is worth 10% when it gets |
| 24 |
something wrong trying too hard to get it all right. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives