chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:25:05 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:37 am, chromatic wrote:
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?
I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but sticks
work too when applied in a respectable fashion.
But having a hall of shame filled with nothing but names of developers
(nom-de-guerres notwithstanding) does awfully look like ad hominem attacks put
into system. That's obviously no good. We're quite capable of giving negative
feedback about modules while staying civil.
But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press rules
("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")
- Salve
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
sub AUTOLOAD{$AUTOLOAD=~/.*::(\d+)/;seek(DATA,$1,0);print# Salve Joshua Nilsen
getc DATA}$"="'};&{'";@_=unpack("C*",unpack("u*",':4@,$'.# <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
'2!--"5-(50P%$PL,!0X354UC-PP%/0\`'."\n"));eval "&{'@_'}"; __END__ is near! :)
