Thanks Jasper, that’s a good idea. I’ll run this year’s survey for two weeks, from November 1 to November 15.
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Jasper Van der Jeugt <m...@jaspervdj.be> wrote: > > Hi Taylor, > > Just a small comment: I would like to keep the survey open a bit longer -- I > would suggest two weeks. This gives us a bit more time to push it out twice > to as many channels as possible (once at the start and a reminder after a > week or so). My intuition is that we'll be able to gather significantly more > responses that way. > > Thanks again for organizing this! > > Cheers > Jasper > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 00:55, Taylor Fausak <tay...@fausak.me > <mailto:tay...@fausak.me>> wrote: > Thank you all for the wonderful feedback so far! I greatly appreciate all of > it. > > I didn’t mean to be exclusionary with my language before, and I thank y’all > for correcting me there. “We’re doing this together for the benefit of all” > is an excellent way to say what I’m shooting for here. > > My goal for the survey is to be useful to many different groups of people: > the GHC team, library authors, application developers, repository > maintainers, prospective employees, hiring managers, community organizers, > and no doubt many more groups that I’m not thinking of right now. I want to > avoid results that are neat but not useful. I also want to avoid results that > simply throw fuel onto common flame wars. > > Last year I announced the survey results and provided some commentary. I > suspect I’ll do something similar this year, although reading your comments > here makes me want to do less analyzing in favor of simply publishing. I am > not particularly adept at analyzing survey results and am bound to make some > rookie mistakes. In fact, one of the reasons that I published the results > last year was so that someone who actually knew what they were doing could > slice and dice the data. > > As far as scheduling is concerned, I plan to keep the survey open for a week, > from November 1st to 7th. Publishing the results should happen relatively > quickly after that. I slowed myself down last year by rendering a bunch of > graphs, and even so I published on November 15th. > > It sounds like the Haskell.org committee is broadly in favor of backing the > upcoming Haskell Weekly survey. Is that correct? In either case, what are the > next steps? > > > On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Boespflug, Mathieu <m...@tweag.io > > <mailto:m...@tweag.io>> wrote: > > > > Since I was pinged up-thread, might as well chime in. If only to say > > "I agree": selection bias is what it is. Taylor's efforts to come to > > this committee are laudable. And really could help mitigate some > > issues we've seen with other surveys. Selection bias isn't something > > worth agonizing over, provided we're careful to say in the analysis of > > the results: "We found that X% of the respondents of this survey use > > Y", not "X% of Haskell devs use Y". > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:02, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community > > <haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:haskell-community@haskell.org>> > > wrote: > >> > >> | Hi Taylor. I like the way you pose things here: "I don't expect that > >> | to remove selection bias, but it will let me (us, really) say: We're > >> | doing this together for the benefit of all sides". I think that's a > >> | better place to start from. > >> > >> I like this too -- and like Gershom, I'd delete "sides". We aspire > >> to work together, not on different sides. > >> > >> | earlier I've been thinking about a bit, where you wrote: "My goal is > >> | for this survey to be *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the > >> | community to broadly accept it's results." > >> > >> This sounds a bit too exclusive to me, and implicitly critical of other > >> work. Better to stick to the positives: you simply want the > >> opinions of a broad constituency on a broad range of questions. > >> > >> | Anyway, this is all a long-winded way of suggesting that it might be > >> | good if the purpose of the survey was explicitly set out as trying to > >> | inform developers of haskell libraries and tools (and educational > >> | materials) regarding the systems their potential users work on and > >> | develop, and their habits and practices in doing so, and where they > >> | encounter difficulty. That is explicitly as a way of learning rather > >> | than as any sort of horse-race or popularity contest. > >> > >> That sounds good to me -- but again in drafting the goals I'd stick > >> to the positives, and not speak about horse-races. > >> > >> Simon > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Haskell-community mailing list > >> Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> > >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community > >> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community> > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-community mailing list > Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community> > -- > Jasper
_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
