Validation Process
From 42Experiment
This page is an attempt to describe various (all?) validation processes. You are more than welcome to contribute here, and to use the Discussion page (also available in the Discussion Tab above) to talk about it all.
The 42 Registry has started with a manual process involving a small number of people (ie. Admins), but we would very much like to change to a different process, where the Community is involved.
Contents |
[edit] Manual Validation (current as of Jan 2011)
Applications are visible only to a group of Admins.
At any given time, an admin can view the list of pending applications, pick one from the list, and decide whether the Purpose is within the boundaries of the Charter. If so, the application is accepted. If not, the application is rejected and the admin explains the reason why in a message sent to the Applicant.
Application results are known only to the Admins and to each Applicant.
[edit] Pros
- Easy to set up (that's why we started with this)
- Since the Admins are also the ones who wrote the Charter, they know the philosophy behind it. They only judge whether a Purpose is Charter-compliant or not, they do not rely on they like it or not. Therefore, their judgement can normally be trusted.
- "Borderline" cases (or otherwise difficult) can be discussed internally until a consensus is reached.
[edit] Cons
- Won't hold in case the daily rate of applications increases
- Very little transparency (we don't like it)
- If the domain is rejected, the application is immediately lost. This can be a problem if, for example, the Purpose is valid but badly phrased, and the Admin reading it identifies an issue with the Charter. The Applicant has to re-apply, running the risk of being side-stepped by another Applicant.
[edit] Community Validation
Applications are visible to Everyone, on a public website.
For each pending application, each Member of the Community who has already at least ONE .42 domain gets ONE vote, and can vote YES or NO to the question "I believe this application complies with the 42 Registry Charter and should therefore be approved". When voting NO, the Member is encouraged to post a Comment explaining why they believe the application should be rejected.
After the evaluation period, if there is a majority of YES votes, the application is approved. If not, it is rejected; in this case, the Applicant can appeal to the Admins, who can then make a final decision.
Applications results are made public.
[edit] Variables and Variants
In this approach, there are quite a few parameters we need to decide on. Please use the Discussion page to talk about it.
- The evaluation period is a variable: should it be 48 hours or 7 days?
- The Majority rule seems natural, but it might not be suitable for borderline cases (eg 51% vs 49%)
- For practical reasons, we can only keep a certain number of Application Results to be made public. We could settle for "Last 20 applications" for example.
[edit] Pros
- Scalable
- More transparency. The fact that the latest application results are available is probably a good thing per se. It can also serve as a reference.
- More democratic than the manual approach: everyone is involved!
[edit] Cons
- The whole procedure is more complex than the manual one
- Lots of variables:
- Where should we set the approval "bar": 50% ? 60% ? What about borderline cases ?
- With a vast validation community, it is easier to loose track of the Charter, and rely on one's own judgement instead
- One of the possible consequences is that the Community might drift to a more elitist selection habit, which we cannot have. This can be mitigated by the Appeal procedure.
