[PL] Proposed timetable for selection of the 2005 Pricelessware List

[Susan Bugher]

Proposed timetable for selection of the 2005 Pricelessware List:

NOMINATIONS and DISCUSSION (4 weeks): October 1 - October 28, 2004
VOTING (1 week): October 29 - Novermber 4, 2004
VOTE RESULTS POSTED: November 5, 2004
PRELIMINARY PRICELESSWARE LIST POSTED: November 6, 2005
FINAL SELECTION DISCUSSION (1 week): November 7 - November 13, 2004
FINAL PRICELESSWARE LIST POSTED: November 14, 2004

The discussion period will begin with the start of nominations.

Last year program descriptions were submitted with (or after) a program
was nominated. This year they may be submitted before nominations start
and *must* be submitted before a program can be nominated.

Proposed Procedure:

Programs descriptions may be submitted informally in the month preceding
the start of nominations. Submitting descriptions prior to the start of
nominations will greatly facilitate the nominating process.

Pricelessware 2004 programs and programs with verified descriptions will
be listed in the post that opens the Pricelessware Nominations.
Nominations and seconds may be made from that list.

A special thread will be used for program descriptions submitted
*during* the nomination process. A program may *not* be placed in
nomination until the program description has been verified.

Comments?

Susan

 

[Henk de Jong]

Proposed timetable for selection of the 2005 Pricelessware List:

NOMINATIONS and DISCUSSION (4 weeks): October 1 - October 28, 2004
VOTING (1 week): October 29 - Novermber 4, 2004
VOTE RESULTS POSTED: November 5, 2004
PRELIMINARY PRICELESSWARE LIST POSTED: November 6, 2005
FINAL SELECTION DISCUSSION (1 week): November 7 - November 13, 2004
FINAL PRICELESSWARE LIST POSTED: November 14, 2004

The discussion period will begin with the start of nominations.

Last year program descriptions were submitted with (or after) a program was
nominated. This year they may be submitted before nominations start and
*must* be submitted before a program can be nominated.

Proposed Procedure:

Programs descriptions may be submitted informally in the month preceding the
start of nominations. Submitting descriptions prior to the start of
nominations will greatly facilitate the nominating process.

Pricelessware 2004 programs and programs with verified descriptions will be
listed in the post that opens the Pricelessware Nominations. Nominations and
seconds may be made from that list.

A special thread will be used for program descriptions submitted *during* the
nomination process. A program may *not* be placed in nomination until the
program description has been verified.

Comments?

Susan

Let me begin with telling you that, in spite of what happened in here
regarding the PL-sites, I think you are doing a great job regarding the
nominations for 2005.

Just a suggestion:
Wouldn't it be better to split the weeks for the nominations and
discussion in 3 weeks for nomination and 1 week for discussion. The
experience of past years is that a lot more time is needed for the
nominations than for the discussion. When there is a list compiled of
the nominated programs, the discussion could work out a lot smoother.

A couple of questions:
1) How do you want to have the descriptions of the programs?
2) Who verifies the program descriptions?
3) When you like to have the program descriptions *before* the
nominations start, do you want all those descriptions published in here
(ACF)?
4) When you really want to do that, nominations start before October
1st. I'm pretty sure that nobody posts a description in here, while he
or she doesn't want to nominate that program.
5) Wouldn't it be better when the program descriptions are added
*after* the nomination?

With kind regards,

--
Henk de Jong
The Netherlands
(e-mail address removed) (Remove _NO_SPAM_)
'Links to Freeware'
http://www.linkstofreeware.vze.com/
http://home.hccnet.nl/hmdejong/

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

Let me begin with telling you that, in spite of what happened in here
regarding the PL-sites, I think you are doing a great job regarding the
nominations for 2005.

Thanks Henk.

Just a suggestion:
Wouldn't it be better to split the weeks for the nominations and
discussion in 3 weeks for nomination and 1 week for discussion. The
experience of past years is that a lot more time is needed for the
nominations than for the discussion. When there is a list compiled of
the nominated programs, the discussion could work out a lot smoother.

Discussion is the important part. I don't see any reason to delay the
start of it. Last year I was able to keep the Nominations page pretty
much current. (Lsst year people kept nominating programs throughout the
discussion period. The real change is starting the discussion sooner.)

A couple of questions:
1) How do you want to have the descriptions of the programs?

The same way descriptions look on the PL page. (I'll have more info
about that later.)

2) Who verifies the program descriptions?

I do - and the newsgroup. After the program description is verified it
will be available online.

3) When you like to have the program descriptions *before* the
nominations start, do you want all those descriptions published in here
(ACF)?

Yes - the descriptions should be posted in the newsgroup where they can
be reviewed and commented on.

4) When you really want to do that, nominations start before October
1st. I'm pretty sure that nobody posts a description in here, while he
or she doesn't want to nominate that program.
5) Wouldn't it be better when the program descriptions are added *after*
the nomination?

Last year programs were nominated that had to be removed from the
nominations list. IMO a program should be known to be eligible before it
can be nominated.

Last year: We had shareware nominations. We had nominations with bad
links, nominations for programs that aren't available for download. We
had nominations for the same program using different program names. etc.
etc. etc.

IMO these kinds of problems are best addressed before the start of
nominations. Then we can begin PL2005 nominations with a good clean list
of programs that are eligible for nomination and seconding.

Susan

 

[Henk de Jong]

Discussion is the important part. I don't see any reason to delay the start
of it. Last year I was able to keep the Nominations page pretty much current.
(Lsst year people kept nominating programs throughout the discussion period.
The real change is starting the discussion sooner.)

I hope you are right. But based on what I have seen in the past years I
still think that it would be better when the discussion is done *after*
the nomination and *after* a list of the nominated programs is
compiled.

Last year programs were nominated that had to be removed from the nominations
list. IMO a program should be known to be eligible before it can be
nominated.

Last year: We had shareware nominations. We had nominations with bad links,
nominations for programs that aren't available for download. We had
nominations for the same program using different program names. etc. etc.
etc.

IMO these kinds of problems are best addressed before the start of
nominations. Then we can begin PL2005 nominations with a good clean list of
programs that are eligible for nomination and seconding.

I see your point. But when you say that the nominations start on
October 1st, when do you want the descriptions of the programs (and in
fact start the nominations)? I say this because I don't see why
somebody would produce a description of a program, and after that he or
she doesn't nominate that same program. Or does everybody has to repeat
his or her nominations *after* October 1st? I don't think this will
work....


With kind regards,

--
Henk de Jong
The Netherlands
(e-mail address removed) (Remove _NO_SPAM_)
'Links to Freeware'
http://www.linkstofreeware.vze.com/
http://home.hccnet.nl/hmdejong/

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:


I see your point. But when you say that the nominations start on October
1st, when do you want the descriptions of the programs (and in fact
start the nominations)? I say this because I don't see why somebody
would produce a description of a program, and after that he or she
doesn't nominate that same program.

Stranger things have happened. In years past there have been programs
that were nominated and seconded and received no votes.

Or does everybody has to repeat his
or her nominations *after* October 1st? I don't think this will work....

IMO it should work quite nicely. When nominations officially open I'll
post a list of PL2004 programs and other programs that have descriptions
- It will be similar to the list I posted last year at the start of
nominations for PL2004 (that list only had PL2003 programs on it). It
will look something like this:

----------------

To nominate or second a program or programs:

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO NOMINATE OR SECOND.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to nominate or second.
-----

1by1
1st Page 2000
2xExplorer
40tude Dialog

<snip>

-----

That approach worked very well last year. I'd like to extend it to as
many programs as possible this year.

Program descriptions for programs that are not on the initial list may
be posted in a separate thread. When the program description is verified
the program will be eligible for nomination.

Program descriptions are the part of the PL selection process that
require the most time and effort on my part. I hope most people will
post their descriptions *before* nominations officially start. IMO that
will make the whole selection process go much more smoothly.

Susan

 

[Ben Cooper]

I hope you are right. But based on what I have seen in the past years
I still think that it would be better when the discussion is done
*after* the nomination and *after* a list of the nominated programs is
compiled.

That's how I would prefer it to be, too, but looking at the history of
this group, it's inevitable that discussion will bleed into almost every
thread that's posed.

That's a good point for when "discussion" bleeds into "nomination".
Since *anyone* can post a nomination, it's up to those interested (the
voters) to verify such posts and then some others will likely follow up
with a "clarification" post. It's likely some will slip through the
cracks, but it's a good process, considering this is an "alt" group.
Mistakes will happen and can be corrected by the group.

I see your point. But when you say that the nominations start on
October 1st, when do you want the descriptions of the programs (and in
fact start the nominations)? I say this because I don't see why
somebody would produce a description of a program, and after that he
or she doesn't nominate that same program. Or does everybody has to
repeat his or her nominations *after* October 1st? I don't think this
will work....

Yes, that seems a bit cumbersome, doesn't it? Anyone have suggestions
for improvement?