For the smooth running of this evaluation, please respect the following rules:
- Remain polite, kind, respectful and constructive whatever happens during
this conversation. It's a matter of confidence between you and the
42 community.
- Highlight the potential problems you ‘ve had with the work you're presented
to the person or the group you're grading, and take the time to talk about
and discuss those issues.
- Accept the fact that the exam subject or required functions might lead
to different interpretations. Listen to your discussion partner's
perspective with an open mind (are they right or wrong ?) and grade them as
fairly as possible.
42's teaching methods can make sense only if peer-evaluation is
taken seriously.
- You must only evaluate what you will find in the student's or group's
GiT repository.
- Take the time to check that the GiT repository matches the student or
group and the project.
- Double check that no malicious alias was used to mislead you and make you
grade something different from the official repository content.
- If a script supposed to help evaluate the exam is supplied by either side, the
other side will have to strictly check it to avoid nasty surprises.
- If the evaluating student has not yet taken this project, they will have to
read the exam subject in its entirety before starting the evaluation.
- Use the flags available on this grading system to signal an empty or non-
funcional project, a norm flaw, cheating, etc. In that case, evaluation stops
and final grade is 0 (or -42 if it's a cheating problem). However, if it's
not a cheating problem, you are invited to keep talking about the work that
has been done (or not done, as a matter of fact) in order to identify the
issues that lead to this stalemate and avoid it next time.
- Evaluation must be made with a virtual machine running with Debian >= 7 with root rights.