"Zope-certified Python Engineers" [was: Java and Python]

[Jim Dennis]

In article <mailman.1016732314.18695.python-list at python.org>, 
  Laura Creighton wrote:

>> ( Or maybe this begs for a Slashdot like system to
>> distribute the review, grading and selection of projects. )
>> -- Steve

> You want something more like the scientific reviewing of a technical
> paper than slashdot's 'all you need to vote is a pulse'.  Otherwise
> the most popular wrong way to do something will generate the highest
> marks.  This is a very hard thing to do politically -- there is a
> tightrope between the sort of eletism which exists to keep a lid
> on new, good, creative endeavours (a flaw you can correct by inserting 
> more democracy into your process)and pandering to the worst base 
> instincts of humanity (a flaw you can correct by having higher standards
> in your selection committee).  The best way to do this is to provide
> a certain amount of meta-data with your assessment -- so we can
> find out not only that Steven Majewski thinks that XXX is cool, but
> also that Steven Majewski has a reputation around here, and most
> people think that Steven Majewski's opinion of something is valuable.

 It's a bit off-topic for this newsgroup, but relevant to this
 discussion: Advogato (http://advogato.org/ ) has a meshed reputation
 scheme.  People vote on your level (from Apprentice through Journeyer 
 to Master).  However, the effect of their vote is heavily weighted by
 their level which is determined by how others voted on them.
 People/accounts are marked as "observers" until (non-Observer) vets 
 them.  Some key "seed" accounts are initially marked as "Masters"
 and, if they are chosen wisely, the whole system seems to work
 reasonably well.  Of course you can read all about the trust metric

 If the seed users are careless, corrupt or incompetent then they 
 system will be a mutual admiration society).  Note that Raph (the
 creator of Advogato hasn't claimed that this solves any particular
 real-world problem.  I seem to recall that his intent was to have a 
 "slashdot with some quality control."

> This doesn't stop Flaming Rabid Hamster from voting that Steven
> Majewski is a fool and that every project that Steven Majerski finds
> valuable is worthless, but if this is an minority opinion of 1, then

 ...

> I think that this sort of metadata belongs in the sort of
> cataloging system we should have to implement PEP 262, as well.
> Of course, I am biased -- AB Strakt is building something to do
> this, because we think that its a huge world problem that needs
> fixing.

> Laura Creighton

 You should read about the Advogato "Trust Metric"
 (http://advogato.org/trust-metric.html ).  It's possible that 
 this could be used at python.org as a community voting scheme.
 A few seeds (Tim Peters, Guido, etc) could select lieutenants
 (Journeyers, or even Masters).  People who post intelligibly
 to that site and/or to this newsgroup might be deemed as "Apprentices"
 at least.  Someone who's contributed to the FAQ, docs, or esp.
 the code corpus (modules, or core) should probably be given Journeyer
 or Master status.  (Journeyer for a working published module and
 Master for anything that gets into the main distribution?).