Although the wording may be quite restrictive as is, I am in favour of seeing questions going in that direction. This year there have been too many redundant posts with little to no actual value or something new and the goal of gaining the reward was too obvious. Utopian nor anybody else do gain from a ton of posts that tightly follow few points and try to be as extensive as possible just to meet the highest points in some kind of evaluation.
I have some concerns about this question Is the submission enjoyable to read? Hopefully, it is going to get a reasonable scoring and won't be broken as is in the anti-abuse category. Moreover, such evaluation questions will benefit from crowd use (ie. more reviewers in the evaluation process).
Let's see how it works. I am looking forward to seeing the category refreshed after so long time. There was only minority of good posts, imho.
I understand the need for the questionnaire to be strict to curb abuse @espoem. But what I'm saying is quite reasonable too.
I don't know how feasible it is for a contributor to get appointed by a project owner. On the blockchain, it is feasible, but off it, it isn't.
So once again, that part of the questionnaire will favour only some set of people and that is project owners on the blockchain. It's kind of restricting open source to the blockchain only.
I thought the questionnaire was supposed to fair for everyone contributing.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this @didic. Although like I said, the questionnaire is not open for a debate.
Once again, great job done.