<!-- @page
P
-><!- @page
P
-->
Kathleen, Randy, Cherry, Bert, Tim, Rita
1. Release notes
The release notes for the new Etoys version have to be written. There is a list of what has changed in the new version: http://etoys.laptop.org/src/ChangeLog
And then there are some other changes (like added languages ec.) which is here:
http://etoys.laptop.org/src/NEWS
http://svn.squeakland.org/installers/NEWS
Our task as the education team would be to tell the users what has changed in the new version, but in a way they can understand it. This is what Kim wrote for the last Etoys version:
http://squeakland.org/download/releaseNotes.jsp
Rita will go through the list and write up a first version.
2. Showcase
The second part of the meeting was devoted to discussions about the showcase.
Randy suggested to have an explanation on the top of the screen about how to vote and to have a submit-button on the page. Tim pointed out that this is related Issue SQ-472 in the tracker.
http://tracker.squeakland.org/browse/SQ-472
Cherry asked, if there will be a button to enable or disable ranking.
We then had a longer discussion about if we want to rank projects or not. Kathleen and Avigail are strongly against ranking (mostly because they don't want to discourage children, and it is very difficult to rank a project from a child and a project from an expert because these cannot be compared to eachother), Randy, Cherry and Tim are in favour of it (feedback will help children to learn more, ranking will help users to find good projects easily), Rita and Bert would like to have it different from how it is now (especially split the process of ranking into moderating and rating).
Tim pointed out four points without consensus yet:
1) whether the "featured" and "everyone" sections should have different names, different looks, different rules, and different navigation
2) whether "everyone" projects should be ranked at all
Kathleen wrote an email where she explained the reasons why ranking projects could be dangerous. Rita pointed out that submitters should decide if they want their projects ranked to lessen the burden of the rankers.
3) whether moderation (hiding a project due to inappropriate content) should be separate from ranking (giving points to projects to allow sorting)
Tim asked, if just moderating really could be faster then ranking.
4) whether to show account levels with colored dots, and if so, how to calculate them
We didn't get to this point in the meeting.
Regarding #1:
Randy suggested to follow Kim's idea of having the best projects with proper guidance and explanation in the featured section.
The teams agrees on that.
There is no consensus yet about the other projects. Should they be ranked, and how? There was a lot of discussion.
Tim explained that there will be groups, where all members of the group could put projects without any ranking (good for use in classrooms).
We discussed about approving/unapproving projects some more. A suggestion was to rank with negative numbers could mean rejection. Bert strongly recommended not to mingle moderation and ranking, which would happen because these negative numbers would be used when calculating the rank. Tim agreed to put a veto-button in the ballots, which is used to reject projects, so that no other person has to look at that project.
We agreed on this process:
- when a project is uploaded, ballots are being send
- in the ballots you find a veto-button to reject projects with inappropriate content (we will write down what is considered inappropriate).
- The person, who rejects a project, has to write a comment why it has been rejected.
- The project will be send back to the submitter, who will read the comment and a nice email that he/she please should change the project and upload it again
- if the project is uploaded again, a new ballot for this project will be generated, so that not necessarily the same person will look at that project (but of course that can happen)
To make ranking easier, Randy will write up a list of labels which can be used instead of just numbers.