(288) previous ~ index ~ next
To: jonathan.fiscus@nist.gov
From: Steve Lowe <steve@dragonsys.com>
Subject: Re: Default evaluation conditions
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:28:58 -0500
Jon,
In response to your points:
> I don't want to move the deadline another week. We really need to tie
> up this eval and get on with preparation for the meeting.
Is it really so hard to run a second batch of scoring later in the
month? The meeting isn't until the end of February. Remember, I only
asked for an additional WEEK in my original message!
> My understanding is that Charles would like to see as many official
> scored results as possible. That way the official account of the
> evaluation which will be published will be able to address all facets of
> the evaluation. ..."
If Charles wants more officially-scored submissions, why should the
pressure be on the sites provide them earlier rather than on NIST to
score them later?
Also, it is not clear to me, and will not be to my supervisors, how
important inclusion in the "official account" is. This means our
bosses will apply pressure to get our submissions in by your deadline,
no matter what alternatives you offer.
Charles, are you on this mailing list? Can you comment?
> If you are UNABLE to complete your contrastive runs by the 6th..."
> (emphasis mine--SL)
I would say "unable" is a poor, and insulting, choice of word. We can
make the deadline if we have to, but you have yet to give me a
compelling reason WHY we have to. No hard feelings, Jon, and I know
scoring the evaluation is a difficult job, and we all appreciate the
effort you put into it. But I really don't see why you get to
make this determination unilaterally.
Regards to all,
Steve
(288) previous ~ index ~ next
Last updated Wed Feb 3 10:44:20 1999