On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 02:47 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Yes it would be a signal but a useless signal, not? >
You seem to aim for arbitrarily blocking developers from making decisions by preventing them from having data. This won't work. Firstly, because *we have* to make decisions, and the worse data we have, the more arbitrary decisions will be. Secondly, because we always will have some data, it will probably be worse than what's being proposed here. Generally, having more data means making better informed decisions. Of course, there's always the potential of having too much data (though I honestly don't think we're anywhere near that). There's also the potential of being lazy and just taking the easiest available data. There's no way around that but then, you can also be lazy and make decisions ignoring any data. For example, one kind of data we have right now are bugs. So a package fails for me in an obvious way yet there's no bug open. Does that mean that the package has zero users? Otherwise someone would have reported the problem, right? So here go last rites. Gentoostats could tell me 'hey, this package has bunch of users still'. This questions my first assessment -- 'oh, they probably haven't had to rebuild it since ...' If I have no data, we have to rely on 'gut feelings'. I have a gut feeling that this package looks useless, why bother. Is that more worthwhile than having *some* number to look at? Even if the data is biased towards specific kind of users, it would probably work better than guessing. And if it looks unreasonable, nobody stops you from guessing. I guess that an informed guess is better than a random guess. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
