On Sun, Jul 9, 2023, 16:25 Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 at 15:56, Stephen J. Turnbull < > turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > >> James Addison via Python-ideas writes: >> >> > The implementation of such a system could either be centralized or >> > distributed; the trust signals that human users infer from it >> > should always be distributed. >> >> ISTM the primary use cases advanced here have been for "naive" users. >> Likely they won't be in a position to decide whether they trust Guido >> van Rossum or Egg Rando more. So in practice they'll often want to go >> with some kind of publicly weighted average of scores. >> > > I'll also point out that I'm a long-standing Python developer, and a core > dev, and I still *regularly* get surprised by finding out that community > members that I know and respect are maintainers of projects that I had no > idea they were associated with. Which suggests that I have no idea how many > *other* people who I think of as "just another person" might be maintainers > of key, high-profile projects. So I think that a model based round > weighting results based on "who you trust" would have some rather > unfortunate failure modes. > > Honestly, I'd be more likely to go with "I can assume that projects that > are dependencies of other projects that I already know are good quality, > are themselves good quality". Which excludes people from the > equation altogether, but which falls apart when I'm looking for a library > in a new area. > > Paul >
Cautious +1, since PageRank did pretty well for a good stint in a somewhat analogous environment. >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/J5RH7ZGWO23APG42E6ZU5QPRXMYKJ7W4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/