Pedro H. Costa   •   4 days ago

Evaluation transparency: seeking a technical response equivalent to the "Build What's Next" mandate

1. The 'black-box' judging process lacks transparency and discourages high-level participation. There is a clear asymmetry: developers disclose proprietary work (e.g., Rust source code), but receive zero technical feedback in return. Replacing this secrecy with direct metrics on 'technical gaps' would foster a meritocratic environment and validate industrial-grade innovation. Without auditability, the 'Idea Importance Percentage' (IIP) remains unrecognized by the ecosystem. If Google Gemini 3 is about "building what's next," the evaluation process should be as advanced and transparent as the technology it promotes.

​2. Anyone who participates in a competition of this caliber expects a return on their technical dedication. This is justified because the prizes do not conclude the eligible projects; rather, it is so that each developer can hold the weight of their work in their own hands. A hackathon should not be a "black hole" where code goes in and silence comes out; it should be a catalyst for the project, whether winning or not.