On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:25:05 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:37 am, chromatic wrote: > > I don't care about backchannel communication between other authors and > > CPAN Testers, but how can you blame Shlomi for thinking that public > > humiliation isn't a vital component of Kwalitee? There's prior art: > > > > http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame
> That looks sorted by kwalitee and author. If we're shaming people, author > name shouldn't be a factor. Could it be by kwalitee and most recent > release date instead? Why should any part of QA include shaming people? My day job occasionally includes journalism (as in performing journalism and managing journalists). If I published something negative about someone without contacting that person first, I'd reap a whirlwind, and rightfully so. I assume that one of the goals of CPANTS is to improve the packaging of CPAN distributions. I have no desire to turn CPANTS into journalists, but the "Being a jerk is not productive" rule seems to apply here as well. The same goes for the "Oh yeah, we all did notice your fly was open last night when you were on stage accepting an award -- didn't you see the Flickr pictures this morning? HIL-AIR-EE-US!" rule. -- c
