Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:41:56 -0400
Reply-To: "Dorfman, Paul" <Paul.Dorfman@BCBSFL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Dorfman, Paul" <Paul.Dorfman@BCBSFL.COM>
Subject: Re: SAS-L Awards
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Dinesh,
I have a few objections to this approach.
1. It would be tantamount to taking ourselves too seriously.
2. These awards are not associated with any cash value, nor marketing value
(I doubt one will have a hiring or contractual advantage based on his Hall
of Fame, MVS, or Rookie of the Year BOF award). So, there is no reason to
establish the World Cup judging system.
3. BOF awards are simply a sign of appreciation among peers, which makes
peer X nominating/voting for peer Y exactly just and fair.
4. Nobody says you cannot have SAS-L statistics before you. Simply take your
time to extract it. It is all on the Joe Kelley's (excellent) site. Jack
Hamilton has written a program to derive his statistics. I bet you can do
the same.
5. From what I gather, the existing system has worked quite well. Among
those who have received the MVS and HOF recognitions in the past 3 years,
namely,
Ian Whitlock
Peter Crawford
Ron Fehd
Paul Dorfman
David Cassell
Dale McLerran
I have no problem admitting that my contributions might have been
overappreciated, but among the rest, could you point one having received a
prize without merit? If you thought there were better candidates, you had a
perfect opportunity to nominate and vote.
Kind regards,
======================
Paul M. Dorfman
Jacksonville, FL
======================
> From: Chavda, Dinesh [mailto:Dinesh.Chavda@UK.EXPERIAN.COM]
>
> To All,
>
> Why do not we have a fairer method of determining the
> winners of the
> SAS-L Awards. Rather
> then associate X voting for associate Y and Y voting for Z
> and Z voting for
> X.
>
> Surely there must be a fairer method of determining the
> winners. I am
> not against winner/s
> by votes, but, surely can we have the facts before us before voting?
> Like No. of times the person has posted to SAS_L (obviously
> within the time
> frame concerned)
> including the replies.
> No. of times original idea (posting) has been posted. Was it
> discussion or asking
> for problem solution.
> No. of times helpful suggestion/solution has been posted.
> No. of times 'URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL', 'URGENT
> RESPONSE' etc, etc
> has been ignored?
> No. of times refrained from posting non-related SAS
> topics? e.g. Spam
> messages.
>
> I am open to suggestions, and, surely, administrators of
> SAS-L may be able
> to analyse
> all the e-mails to supply info. on some of the above questions?
>
> I only like to vote if facts are all there. Surely, no one
> will think to
> vote blindfolded?
>
> Dinesh Chavda
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================================
> =========
> Information in this email and any attachments are
> confidential, and may
> not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor
> disclosed
> to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to
> create any legally binding contract or other commitment
> through the use
> of this email.
>
> Experian Limited (registration number 653331).
> Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
>
>
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
| 
