Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Gabor Szabo]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:06:21AM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>> and that the cpantesters tools would ignore them.
>
> isnt("CPAN Testers", "CPANTS");
>
> You're confusing the issue. Please do not bring CPAN Testers into this.

why, we have not bashed them for over a month now ;-)

Gabor

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Barbie]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:06:21AM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> and that the cpantesters tools would ignore them.

isnt("CPAN Testers", "CPANTS");

You're confusing the issue. Please do not bring CPAN Testers into this.

Cheers,
Barbie.
-- 
Birmingham Perl Mongers 
Memoirs Of A Roadie 

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Eric Wilhelm]

# from David Cantrell
# on Thursday 30 October 2008 09:11:

>> It would certainly be for the best if those distributions contained
>> as much useful data as possible, and that certainly does include
>> author tests. I seem to remember that putting them in xt/ was the
>> consensus, and that the cpantesters tools would ignore them.
>
>The cpantesters tools are just wrappers around the normal test
>harnesses.  It's those that would need to ignore xt/.  Which, I
> believe, is what they do anyway.

Yes.  To be precise, they ignore everything which isn't 't/'.

(Though, one day, I would like for them to selectively pay attention to 
the contents of xt/ based on some sort of standard declaration of 
requirements for "eXtra Testing".)

--Eric
-- 
"...our schools have been scientifically designed to
prevent overeducation from happening."
--William Troy Harris
---
http://scratchcomputing.com
---

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:06:21AM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:

> I've seen the discussion about author tests resurface now and then.
> For some modules, when the author disappears from the Internet, the
> only thing that's left is the distribution (no public repository).
> It would certainly be for the best if those distributions contained as
> much useful data as possible, and that certainly does include author
> tests. I seem to remember that putting them in xt/ was the consensus,
> and that the cpantesters tools would ignore them.

The cpantesters tools are just wrappers around the normal test
harnesses.  It's those that would need to ignore xt/.  Which, I believe,
is what they do anyway.

-- 
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

[OS X] appeals to me as a monk, a user, a compiler-of-apps, a
sometime coder, and an easily amused primate with a penchant
for those that are pretty, colorful, and make nice noises.
-- Dan Birchall, in The Monastery

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Eric Wilhelm]

# from Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
# on Wednesday 29 October 2008 17:06:

>> > >has-test-pod and has-test-pod-coverage ones (if you find that any
>> > > of  my modules meet those metrics, please file a bug report.)
>> >
>> > Oh, come on Eric, I'm proud of TP (which is really brian's) and
>> > TPC!
>>
>> Hey, I love those modules... but I don't want to ship tests with
>> them in my dist.  Nobody needs to run those but me.

The test files for these things don't need to exist, the functionality 
to run these checks is builtin to Module::Build.  And, if I want to 
customize it, I'll do it there.

>It would certainly be for the best if those distributions contained as
>much useful data as possible, and that certainly does include author
>tests. I seem to remember that putting them in xt/ was the consensus,
>and that the cpantesters tools would ignore them.

Yes, true. Yes.  Certainly.

That doesn't change my stance on the duplication of standard code.  The 
presence of t/*test-pod.t or t/*test-pod-coverage.t in any of my 
modules is a bug.  Thus, I will never get those kmwalbxlahtie points.

--Eric
-- 
"Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."
--Murphy's Corollary
---
http://scratchcomputing.com
---

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Philippe Bruhat (BooK)]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 03:24:50PM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> * Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28T13:03:24]
> > >has-test-pod and has-test-pod-coverage ones (if you find that any of  my
> > >modules meet those metrics, please file a bug report.)
> > 
> > Oh, come on Eric, I'm proud of TP (which is really brian's) and TPC!
> > 
> 
> Hey, I love those modules... but I don't want to ship tests with them in my
> dist.  Nobody needs to run those but me.

Actually, is_pod_ok tests could be run by CPANTS directly (the kwalitee
metric is relevant to the pod, not the test script presence).

For is_pod_coverage_ok, I suppose CPANTS could also run it, but there is
a need to mark uncovered method as exceptions, which implies some kind
of extra comments or file or way to pass the information back to CPANTS.

I've seen the discussion about author tests resurface now and then.
For some modules, when the author disappears from the Internet, the
only thing that's left is the distribution (no public repository).
It would certainly be for the best if those distributions contained as
much useful data as possible, and that certainly does include author
tests. I seem to remember that putting them in xt/ was the consensus,
and that the cpantesters tools would ignore them.

-- 
 Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

 When you wander near evil, Security is only a function of foolishness...
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #21 (Epic))

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Eric Wilhelm]

# from Salve J Nilsen
# on Wednesday 29 October 2008 09:28:

>I may have realized something now - that the word "Shame" is a very
> strong and heavy-handed word, on the same level as Quisling and
> Traitor.

I'm not sure it is any heavier than you think it is.

> When we say "skam deg!" ("Shame on you!") we do it to kids who have
> done something nasty (e.g. crapping on the lawn instead of in the
> potty.)

Yeah.  That's about right.  The thing is that shame only carries any 
weight when you respect the community from which you've been shamed.  
If an outsider sips their tea in a way which greatly offends us and we 
try to shame them, they'll just think we're a bunch of jerks.  While 
shame tends to protect a community's values, it doesn't serve to build 
a community (at least not one as inclusive as the CPAN should be.)

Righteousness in the absence of right is just noise.

--Eric
-- 
Chicken farmer's observation:  Clunk is the past tense of cluck.
---
http://scratchcomputing.com
---

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

Rick Fisk said:

On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 19:09 +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:


Yes, I'd like to avoid ad hominem attacks. This is a basic part of 
making any negative-feedback service into a respectable one.


You appear to be contradicting yourself here. There's no need for a hall 
of shame. As somebody has already pointed out, all one needs is for the 
list to be comprehensive, all-inclusive and paginated.


Yes, a comprehensive, all-inclusive and paginated list would be a good 
solution. Especially if users can reverse the list and filter it by CPAN 
ID. :)




[snip]

Your belief that the list is "motivational" is purely conjecture on your
part. If you have some qualitative measure which tends to support the
idea, I'd find it interesting.


Well. I'm basing my argument mostly on personal experience. I've also met 
several people who appreciate getting relevant negative feedback on their 
work. I've also met people who don't like negative feedback at all, not 
seldom accompanied by a "healthy-sized" sense of self. I'd like to see 
more of the former. :-/



In another email on the subject, you suggested "I'd like to see a world 
that treats volunteers with respect, but doesn't deny them negative 
feedback".


Classifying some module as being lower on the list of 'kwalitee' is in
fact positive feedback if no negative characterizations are added. This
is where I think there is some confusion. "Shame" and intending to heap
it on a specific set of developers is definitely negative. A score is
not negative. It is merely a score.


Good points.

I may have realized something now - that the word "Shame" is a very strong 
and heavy-handed word, on the same level as Quisling and Traitor. Is this 
correct? Sorry to ask this question, English is my second language, and 
although we have the same word in Norwegian - "skam", it's hardly a word 
we put much weight and seriousness into. When we say "skam deg!" ("Shame 
on you!") we do it to kids who have done something nasty (e.g. crapping on 
the lawn instead of in the potty.)



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

Would you ever argue that a cancer drug should be discontinued  
just because "only one in a million" uses it?


Yes, if the cost to the community was too high.


Damn. You ignored the argument and chose to comment on the side  
note. Oh well. :-/



To you it's the side note.  To me, and others, it is the key issue.   
Flailing attempts at fixing Kwalitee are not worth alienating current  
and future contributors.


--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

Andy Lester said:

On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

Would you ever argue that a cancer drug should be discontinued just 
because "only one in a million" uses it?


Yes, if the cost to the community was too high.


Damn. You ignored the argument and chose to comment on the side note. Oh 
well. :-/




[snip]

Again, Salve, please understand that the vast majority of humans do not 
divorce their feelings from their work, as much as you may see that as a 
"problem."


I think you haven't grasped the points I've tried to make, so I'm guessing 
this part of the discussion is leading into a dead-end. I'll stop here. 
Thanks for your time.



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

Would you ever argue that a cancer drug should be discontinued just  
because "only one in a million" uses it?



Yes, if the cost to the community was too high.

In this case, your one-in-a-million cancer drug is geared towards  
embarrassing people, which will not increase the number of people  
submitting to CPAN.  I'd rather have people be encouraged to join the  
Perl community and publish to CPAN, than discouraged by seeing others  
listed in a Hall Of Shame because their distros didn't match arbitrary  
tests.


Again, Salve, please understand that the vast majority of humans do  
not divorce their feelings from their work, as much as you may see  
that as a "problem."


--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

Andy Lester said:

On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

Feel free to suggest a better title. (I won't, because I think there's 
a motivational value in keeping it as it is.


[snip]

I have to ask what "motivational value" you see in having a Hall Of 
Shame under any name.  Please describe what scenario you see such that 
this Hall of Shame will have any effect whatsoever on the Kwalitee of 
work generated.


Well, I can start with stating my assumptions. I assume that most people 
have some desire to improve themselves and their work, and I assume that 
they are open to the notion that some of this can happen through critique.


I also assume that we're talking about topical critique, and not personal 
critique (I know some people have problems keeping them apart, but I'm 
willing to assume they at least can _imagine_ how this might work.) The 
topics we're specifically talking about are Kwalitee-metrics. (I 
purposefully ignore evaluating the metrics themselves. That's a discussion 
for another time.)


Furthermore, I assume that authors who publish their code have some form 
of pride of their product - at least enough so they feel comfortable 
placing their name and reputation next to it.


I think these assumptions are pretty safe, but I do know there are 
exceptions to them and that they _are_ after all _assumptions_.


So, how can a "hall of shame" motivate me, given these assumptions? Should 
I find a module of mine in this list, I'd start with searching for what 
this _means_. Are the points raised in the list (the Kwalitee metrics) 
reasonable to me? Can I imagine the relevancy of their critique? If I find 
that the critique is valid, then I feel have to consider how to fix the 
issues raised by the critique (This is the point where I decide to do 
something about it or not.)


If I end up fixing the bugs, then I have been "motivated." And since the 
fix presumably has some value, I think it's not unwarranted to say that 
the motivation leading to the fix also has some value.


All this is of course difficult to measure on anything but a personal 
scale, but we _can_ assume that _less_ bugs will be fixed if we remove 
feedback-mechanisms like the list.



Do you imagine that an author of a low-Kwalitee module is going to 
stumble upon the list and see his or her module on it?  The chances of 
that are miniscule.


This is a side-track of the issue. The issue you raise here is about the 
visibility and/or marketing of the list. Right now, the list is well 
hidden, but with some well-placed words, this can be fixed.



Do you imagine that an author of a low-Kwalitee module, upon seeing his 
or her module on the list, is going to go and modify the distribution? 
The chances of that are miniscule * tiny.


Well. Even if the likelyhood of an author improving their own code is 
tiny, it's better to at least give them the _opportunity_ to do so. 
Shutting down the list entirely doesn't help with this.


On a side note; do you take this position in other arguments too? Would 
you ever argue that a cancer drug should be discontinued just because 
"only one in a million" uses it? Of course you wouldn't. You'd judge the 
drugs on it's merits, not how much it's used. Please, let's talk about the 
merits of the list instead, and how to improve it, make it more visible.



Most of all, what problem are you trying to solve?  I suggest that 
low-Kwalitee modules on the CPAN pose no problem whatsoever.


Maybe they don't today. Maybe we can improve the Kwalitee metrics in such 
a way that low-Kwalitee modules become more of an issue than they are 
today. If we shut down the list, the we lose this opportunity.



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[chromatic]

On Tuesday 28 October 2008 14:12:08 Rick Fisk wrote:

> CPANTS looks more like a pet peeve list wrapped
> up in a pseudo game where "playing" results in a lose-lose for the
> developer.

That's a very different problem though, one which has produced a situation 
where a buggy release of a module intended to check documentation coverage 
can render over half of the CPAN uninstallable.

Fortunately, that's merely *passive* hostility to a much larger number of 
anonymous users.

-- c

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Rick Fisk]

On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 19:09 +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

> 
> Yes, I'd like to avoid ad hominem attacks. This is a basic part of making 
> any negative-feedback service into a respectable one.

> 
> Feel free to suggest a better title. (I won't, because I think there's a 
> motivational value in keeping it as it is. The day I end up on the list, 
> I probably won't say "meh, it's not important for my reputation".)

You appear to be contradicting yourself here. There's no need for a hall
of shame. As somebody has already pointed out, all one needs is for the
list to be comprehensive, all-inclusive and paginated.

There is a small subset of people who *might* be motivated by the CPANTS
attempt to shame them. But anyone who doesn't make changes to their
modules to get themselves off that list ( assuming they know about the
list) is obviously unmotivated by "shame". That makes the list's
necessity self-refuting.

Your belief that the list is "motivational" is purely conjecture on your
part. If you have some qualitative measure which tends to support the
idea, I'd find it interesting. 

In another email on the subject, you suggested "I'd like to see a world
that treats volunteers with respect, but doesn't deny them negative
feedback".

Classifying some module as being lower on the list of 'kwalitee' is in
fact positive feedback if no negative characterizations are added. This
is where I think there is some confusion. "Shame" and intending to heap
it on a specific set of developers is definitely negative. A score is
not negative. It is merely a score. 

Frankly, CPANTS is a bit juvenile in its overall execution. It needs to
grow up. I would rather assume that developers who contribute modules to
CPAN are adults who don't need psychological manipulation to get them to
do things.   They don't need to be treated like 2 year olds. (Here comes
the airplane Johnny...open your mouth...vrooom!"  "Bad Johnny! No
more jumping off the bed!"). Obviously this is the case since CPAN has
been around much longer than CPANTS.

CPANTS could actually be quite useful, especially for those who haven't
yet submitted modules or are working on modules and want to smoke them
BEFORE submitting them. CPANTS looks more like a pet peeve list wrapped
up in a pseudo game where "playing" results in a lose-lose for the
developer. 



> 
> 
> - Salve
> 

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

Feel free to suggest a better title. (I won't, because I think  
there's a motivational value in keeping it as it is.



Salve, I have to ask you to please look at CPANTS and this discussion  
in general from eyes other than your own.  Your derision as "newspeak"  
of what many others see as "basic civility" isn't helping any.  It's  
clear that you don't care about how people feel, but the vast majority  
of people are very concerned with how they feel and how they are  
treated.  Many of us are very concerned with how volunteers are  
treated, because we'd like to keep them around as volunteers.


Aside from that, I have to ask what "motivational value" you see in  
having a Hall Of Shame under any name.  Please describe what scenario  
you see such that this Hall of Shame will have any effect whatsoever  
on the Kwalitee of work generated.


Do you imagine that an author of a low-Kwalitee module is going to  
stumble upon the list and see his or her module on it?  The chances of  
that are miniscule.


Do you imagine that an author of a low-Kwalitee module, upon seeing  
his or her module on the list, is going to go and modify the  
distribution?   The chances of that are miniscule * tiny.


Most of all, what problem are you trying to solve?  I suggest that low- 
Kwalitee modules on the CPAN pose no problem whatsoever.


xoa

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Ricardo SIGNES]

* Salve J Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28T14:54:07]
> David Cantrell said:
> >On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
> >
> >>I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
> >>sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.
> >
> >They might, but a "hall of shame" ain't respectable.  If I were on the
> >list, then it would just make me think "cpants is run by a bunch of
> >cunts, so i'll just ignore them".
> 
> What other list name (that still explains the purpose of the list) would 
> you prefer then?

Get rid of the hall of shame.  Change the pagination on
http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/many to look like "standard" pagination:

  |<   <   1 2 3 ... 100 101 202>   >|

People who want to see the lowest scores can click "202."

People who want to see what they're doing wrong don't want to find out by
clicking, "Hall of Shame" to see if they're there.  They want to click the "See
my report" page and see "Here are your green and red boxes."  Maybe it will
say, "This puts you at rank 102, the 33rd percentile."

The hall of shame does not serve any productive purpose that the above would
not do better.

I imagine that "hall of shame"  immediately sprang to mind after a "hall of
fame" was made and seemed like a good idea, given the "game" metaphor.  I just
think it's not a great idea, all things told.

-- 
rjbs

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Ricardo SIGNES]

* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28T13:03:24]
> >has-test-pod and has-test-pod-coverage ones (if you find that any of  my
> >modules meet those metrics, please file a bug report.)
> 
> Oh, come on Eric, I'm proud of TP (which is really brian's) and TPC!
> 

Hey, I love those modules... but I don't want to ship tests with them in my
dist.  Nobody needs to run those but me.

-- 
rjbs

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

David Cantrell said:

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:


I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.


They might, but a "hall of shame" ain't respectable.  If I were on the
list, then it would just make me think "cpants is run by a bunch of
cunts, so i'll just ignore them".


What other list name (that still explains the purpose of the list) would 
you prefer then?



But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese 
press rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about 
ourselves!")


There's plenty of bad things said on CPANTS still - I have angry red 
marks against my name for all sorts of things.  But I don't mind, 
because they're backed up with an explanation.  Saying "DCANTRELL is a 
bad programmer and should be ashamed of himself" will merely make me 
think less of you.  But saying "DCANTRELL didn't include a changelog in 
some of his distributions, we think that's bad because ..." is called 
Constructive Criticism.  Of course, that doesn't mean I'm paying any 
attention, but at least I haven't dismissed CPANTS as the work of 
ill-mannered lunatics.


Yep, this is your option and your freedom, and it's a Good Freedom. You 
(and any other CPAN author) are, and should always be, allowed to ignore 
the recommendations and opinions from others.


Still, let's not remove the negative opinions just because they are 
negative. There are much better ways to improve those than to outright 
censor them.



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

chromatic said:

On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:54:33 Salve J Nilsen wrote:


- Salve, worried that the next step is to paint pink ponies and rainbows
          all over CPAN.


Hey look, a slippery slope argument combined with the false dilemma 
fallacy!


Yes. Good catch! Happy to see someone's caring about logical fallacies. ;)



Salve, there really are more possibilities in the world besides either:

1) Being complete, irredeemable, raging jerks to volunteers
2) Remaking the world of Perl into Hello Kitty Island Adventure: Riding 
Camp: Their Senior Year


Yep. This is my point too. I'd like to see a world that treats volunteers 
with respect, but doesn't deny them negative feedback just because someone 
thinks $negative_feedback == $personal_attack .



You're a smart guy.  I'm sure you can see that there's nuance between 
those two positions, and I'm sure that once you do, you'll see that 
absolutely no one has seriously argued for #2.


I do see several people argue that we must avoid 1) at seemingly any 
cost, with the result that useful services get 404'd for no other reason 
than "politeness".


(Kinda reminds me of the terrorism hyteria going on everywhere, but that's 
a side note. Never mind that. :-P)



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

Rick Fisk said:

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 19:17 +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:


We're still talking about a marketing/visibility bug here. Don't you 
agree it's better to fix that instead?


You think that it is important that the CPANTS team makes sure that
everyone knows there is a web page dedicated to shaming developers?


Well. I don't care who does it, just as long there are lists with 
constructive negative feedback. I leave it to the developers themselves to 
learn what it takes to get of the list.



There's nothing random or abusing here, just feedback on Kwalitee 
comparisons between modules. If this feedback hurts your (or anyone 
elses) tender little feelings, then too bad. A psychologist would 
remind you not to equate critique of your writings with critique of 
yourself.


You are entitled to your opinion of course, but one doesn't need a
psychologist to identify ad hominem.


Yes, I'd like to avoid ad hominem attacks. This is a basic part of making 
any negative-feedback service into a respectable one.




Antagonism doesn't breed quality software. If it is really a goal to
increase quality, then a 'hall of shame' is counter-productive, the
feelings of people on either side of the issue notwithstanding.


It's ONLY counter-productive if the list is ad-hominem. It's also 
suprisingly easy to avoid ad-hominem attacks in ANY text. Just focus on 
the facts, the product and/or the argument.



If the hall of shame really is 'Kwalitee comparisons between modules', 
it doesn't require a page title of 'hall of shame' and it would by your 
definition need to include all modules under test rather than a subset 
deemed worthy of shame.


Feel free to suggest a better title. (I won't, because I think there's a 
motivational value in keeping it as it is. The day I end up on the list, 
I probably won't say "meh, it's not important for my reputation".)



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[chromatic]

On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:54:33 Salve J Nilsen wrote:

> - Salve, worried that the next step is to paint pink ponies and rainbows
>           all over CPAN.

Hey look, a slippery slope argument combined with the false dilemma fallacy!

Salve, there really are more possibilities in the world besides either:

1) Being complete, irredeemable, raging jerks to volunteers
2) Remaking the world of Perl into Hello Kitty Island Adventure: Riding Camp: 
Their Senior Year

You're a smart guy.  I'm sure you can see that there's nuance between those 
two positions, and I'm sure that once you do, you'll see that absolutely no 
one has seriously argued for #2.

-- c

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

Andy Lester said:

On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

There's nothing random or abusing here, just feedback on Kwalitee 
comparisons between modules. If this feedback hurts your (or anyone 
elses) tender little feelings, then too bad. A psychologist would 
remind you not to equate critique of your writings with critique of 
yourself.


I understand that that's how you see it, but the vast majority of people 
do not.  Most people would see your attitude towards their "tender 
little feelings" as being an asshole, and not want to deal with you. 
That is not a way to encourage volunteers to work on projects.


Oh, I was talking about the Kwalitee hall of shame, not what goes on in 
this mailing list. I also made a point that the negative feedback on 
the HoS list should be given in a respectable manner.


There are lots of ways to make a list respectable, including removing 
words with negative meaning, making the list only contain module names and 
not authors. Feel free to suggest your own NewSpeak-inspired redoing of 
the page, if you really think it's this important. Just don't remove the 
entire list simply because of the _possibility_ that someone's 
sensibilities might be hurt!


(BTW, do you want to remove ALL halls of shame? What about the one on the 
Perl Foundation wiki? 
 )



- Salve, worried that the next step is to paint pink ponies and rainbows
 all over CPAN.

--
#!/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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:57 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:

And perhaps a survey on which metrics developers think are good or  
not.

My "hall of shame" for the kwalitee metrics includes at least the
has-test-pod and has-test-pod-coverage ones (if you find that any of  
my

modules meet those metrics, please file a bug report.)



Oh, come on Eric, I'm proud of TP (which is really brian's) and TPC!

/me goes to cry.

Tito, hand me a tissue.

xoxo,
Andy

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Eric Wilhelm]

# from Rick Fisk
# on Tuesday 28 October 2008 08:50:

>Has anyone actually produced metrics regarding the movement caused by
>CPANTS? ie;  When the first 'hall of shame' was produced, how many
>authors distributions were on that list and how many moved off the
> list? What metrics exist to show the effectiveness of the various
> CPANTS initiatives?

And perhaps a survey on which metrics developers think are good or not.  
My "hall of shame" for the kwalitee metrics includes at least the 
has-test-pod and has-test-pod-coverage ones (if you find that any of my 
modules meet those metrics, please file a bug report.)

--Eric
-- 
hobgoblin n 1: (folklore) a small grotesque supernatural creature that
  makes trouble for human beings
---
http://scratchcomputing.com
---

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Rick Fisk]

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 19:17 +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > On Monday 27 October 2008 10:45:46 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
> > 
> >>> Remember, this is not a project designed only to say "This code sucks."
> >>> Its intent is to encourage people to improve their code.  My code
> >>> doesn't magically get better when someone finds a bug.  It magically
> >>> gets better when someone *fixes* a bug.
> >> 
> >> One is a prerequisite of the other. You have to have some indication that
> >> a bug exists before you can fix it (let's ignore "accidental bugfixes" for
> >> now.) So unless you live in a bubble all by yourself, this list will at
> >> the very least increase the likelyhood of you learning about (in this case
> >> Kwalitee) bugs.
> > 
> > A public hall of shame that several people on the Perl-QA mailing list did
> > not know about has a very marginal effect on increasing the likelihood of 
> > learning about a problem.  I'm not a statistician, so I can confidently say
> > that the chance of that occurring is non-zero.  (Randomly stumbling across
> > several billion web pages will *eventually* get you there.)
> 
> We're still talking about a marketing/visibility bug here. Don't you agree 
> it's 
> better to fix that instead?

You think that it is important that the CPANTS team makes sure that
everyone knows there is a web page dedicated to shaming developers?


> 
> 
> >> This is a good thing. Especially if the scale we're measuring the code is 
> >> sensible, well thought out and relevant. If your ego gets a bruising, too 
> >> bad. The code Kwalitee is more important.
> > 
> > Heaping random, unsolicited, and public abuse on contributors is a fantastic
> > way to make sure there are no Kwalitee programs -- in the sense that
> > abusing contributors is a great way to make sure that there are no more
> > contributors.
> 
> There's nothing random or abusing here, just feedback on Kwalitee comparisons 
> between modules. If this feedback hurts your (or anyone elses) tender little 
> feelings, then too bad. A psychologist would remind you not to equate 
> critique 
> of your writings with critique of yourself.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but one doesn't need a
psychologist to identify ad hominem.

Antagonism doesn't breed quality software. If it is really a goal to
increase quality, then a 'hall of shame' is counter-productive, the
feelings of people on either side of the issue notwithstanding. 

If the hall of shame really is 'Kwalitee comparisons between modules',
it doesn't require a page title of 'hall of shame' and it would by your
definition need to include all modules under test rather than a subset
deemed worthy of shame.

Some person or committee got together and actually decided to spend time
and energy putting this together. I would have loved to have been a fly
on the wall for that conversation.

"Maybe if we produce a hall of shame, the n authors on this list will
finally include a README.txt and a META.yml in their distribution! Then
we'll achieve true 'Kwalitee'!" (I think the correct pronunciation for
this should be qvalitee)

Has anyone actually produced metrics regarding the movement caused by
CPANTS? ie;  When the first 'hall of shame' was produced, how many
authors distributions were on that list and how many moved off the list?
What metrics exist to show the effectiveness of the various CPANTS
initiatives?

For example, the 'extractable' criteria shows zero non-compliant
distributions. Was this ever >0? If not, wouldn't it be reasonable to
assume that a test for 'extractable' is a complete waste of time and
energy?










> 
> 
> - Salve
> 

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[David E. Wheeler]

On Oct 28, 2008, at 05:29, Ovid wrote:

Just a quick cultural point:  over here in the UK, "cunts" is a very  
common term and while insulting, is nowhere near the "OH MY GOD WHAT  
DID HE JUST SAY?" level of unacceptability in the US.  Since many  
reading this list are in the US, they might have been horrified by  
that.  (I know a few people for whom the automatic response to that  
word is a slap).


Oh, hey, I *like* cunts!

--David

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

Carrots are good, but sticks work too when applied in a respectable  
fashion.



Not with volunteers they don't.

Carrots and sticks make sense when you're talking about a horse that's  
harnessed to your wagon.  Try a stick with someone who is an unpaid  
volunteer, working on his projects and contributing to the CPAN, and  
you'll get that horse to walk away and go somewhere else, or just not  
bother uploading code.


xoxo,
Andy

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

There's nothing random or abusing here, just feedback on Kwalitee  
comparisons between modules. If this feedback hurts your (or anyone  
elses) tender little feelings, then too bad. A psychologist would  
remind you not to equate critique of your writings with critique of  
yourself.



I understand that that's how you see it, but the vast majority of  
people do not.  Most people would see your attitude towards their  
"tender little feelings" as being an asshole, and not want to deal  
with you.  That is not a way to encourage volunteers to work on  
projects.


--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Ovid]

--- On Tue, 28/10/08, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> They might, but a "hall of shame" ain't
> respectable.  If I were on the
> list, then it would just make me think "cpants is run
> by a bunch of
> cunts, so i'll just ignore them".

Just a quick cultural point:  over here in the UK, "cunts" is a very common 
term and while insulting, is nowhere near the "OH MY GOD WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?" 
level of unacceptability in the US.  Since many reading this list are in the 
US, they might have been horrified by that.  (I know a few people for whom the 
automatic response to that word is a slap).

Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
Twitter  - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

> I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but 
> sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.

They might, but a "hall of shame" ain't respectable.  If I were on the
list, then it would just make me think "cpants is run by a bunch of
cunts, so i'll just ignore them".

> But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press 
> rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")

There's plenty of bad things said on CPANTS still - I have angry red
marks against my name for all sorts of things.  But I don't mind,
because they're backed up with an explanation.  Saying "DCANTRELL is a
bad programmer and should be ashamed of himself" will merely make me
think less of you.  But saying "DCANTRELL didn't include a changelog in
some of his distributions, we think that's bad because ..." is called
Constructive Criticism.  Of course, that doesn't mean I'm paying any
attention, but at least I haven't dismissed CPANTS as the work of
ill-mannered lunatics.

-- 
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Ovid]

--- On Tue, 28/10/08, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On one hand IMHO the hall of shame was not really a good
> idea but I
> think it was really thought
> as something we could laugh at.

It's also worth remembering that Kwalitee is not Quality.  Dominus and Damian 
both put out some awfully good modules which have relatively poor Kwalitee.  I 
certainly would NOT want to discourage their continued participation.

Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
Twitter  - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Gabor Szabo]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Salve J Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 27 October 2008 05:40:03 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
>>
>>> I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
>>> sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.
>>
>>> But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press
>>> rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")
>>
>> Did you know the Hall of Shame was there?  Several of the people who
>> responded to my post didn't know it was there.
>
> Yes, I knew about it, although it could have been made more visible. Let's
> not fix a visibility/marketing bug by removing the list, but instead fix the
> core issue - the lack of visibility.
>

On one hand IMHO the hall of shame was not really a good idea but I
think it was really thought
as something we could laugh at. So I would consider that a joke that
did not go well
or at least had the potential to go very bad.

On the other hand I think we should let module authors know about the
general ideas the
community somehow thought to be good. For this we have to
1) agree on the core metrics
2) fix CPANTS to provide that information
3) start (cautiously !) sending e-mails to module authors about their

Before you shoot, read on:

1) I think we have already discussed this several times and more or less
 have a list

2) Neither domm, the MAINtainer nor any of the minortener seem to have
any time in fixing CPANTS now.
2.5) Once we get the licensing recommendation from TPF and manage to
decide on the META.yml license field issue (see module-authors list)
I'll try to fix all the license related metrics of CPANTS.

3) Send one e-mail to every module author on their first upload starting from
the time we have this service informing them about the opt-in possibility
for details.
In addition if someone uploads a module that falls in the lower 30% of the
metrics send an e-mail anyway. IMHO this should be an opt-out service.

Gabor

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

chromatic wrote:

On Monday 27 October 2008 05:40:03 Salve J Nilsen wrote:


I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.



But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press
rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")


Did you know the Hall of Shame was there?  Several of the people who responded 
to my post didn't know it was there.


Yes, I knew about it, although it could have been made more visible. Let's not 
fix a visibility/marketing bug by removing the list, but instead fix the core 
issue - the lack of visibility.



How would you feel if some of your work were on the list, had been on the list 
for quite some time, and no one ever told you?


I would certainly not blame anyone else than myself, but that's me (I'm also a 
bad example since I'm aware of the list and would at least put a little effort 
in getting further up on the scale.)



Remember, this is not a project designed only to say "This code sucks."  Its 
intent is to encourage people to improve their code.  My code doesn't 
magically get better when someone finds a bug.  It magically gets better when 
someone *fixes* a bug.


One is a prerequisite of the other. You have to have some indication that a bug 
exists before you can fix it (let's ignore "accidental bugfixes" for now.) So 
unless you live in a bubble all by yourself, this list will at the very least 
increase the likelyhood of you learning about (in this case Kwalitee) bugs.


This is a good thing. Especially if the scale we're measuring the code is 
sensible, well thought out and relevant. If your ego gets a bruising, too bad. 
The code Kwalitee is more important.



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

chromatic wrote:

On Monday 27 October 2008 10:45:46 Salve J Nilsen wrote:


Remember, this is not a project designed only to say "This code sucks."
Its intent is to encourage people to improve their code.  My code
doesn't magically get better when someone finds a bug.  It magically
gets better when someone *fixes* a bug.


One is a prerequisite of the other. You have to have some indication that
a bug exists before you can fix it (let's ignore "accidental bugfixes" for
now.) So unless you live in a bubble all by yourself, this list will at
the very least increase the likelyhood of you learning about (in this case
Kwalitee) bugs.


A public hall of shame that several people on the Perl-QA mailing list did
not know about has a very marginal effect on increasing the likelihood of 
learning about a problem.  I'm not a statistician, so I can confidently say

that the chance of that occurring is non-zero.  (Randomly stumbling across
several billion web pages will *eventually* get you there.)


We're still talking about a marketing/visibility bug here. Don't you agree it's 
better to fix that instead?



This is a good thing. Especially if the scale we're measuring the code is 
sensible, well thought out and relevant. If your ego gets a bruising, too 
bad. The code Kwalitee is more important.


Heaping random, unsolicited, and public abuse on contributors is a fantastic
way to make sure there are no Kwalitee programs -- in the sense that
abusing contributors is a great way to make sure that there are no more
contributors.


There's nothing random or abusing here, just feedback on Kwalitee comparisons 
between modules. If this feedback hurts your (or anyone elses) tender little 
feelings, then too bad. A psychologist would remind you not to equate critique 
of your writings with critique of yourself.



- 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! :)

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Salve J Nilsen]

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! :)

Re: Apology. Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Shlomi Fish]

On Friday 24 October 2008, Ovid wrote:
> Shlomi,
>
> Given what was said here and my own past statements on wanting to improve
> civility, I apologize to you (and publicly!) because regardless of my
> opinion of your email, I should not have copied the Perl-QA list on that. 
> It was very disrespectful of me.

Apology accepted, and no real harm done.

In any case, someone replied to me in private and told me that I should send 
such complaints/queries/etc. to the CPAN Testers' reporter first and if it 
fails, send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . So perl-qa won't be hearing 
from me about this again.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

>
> Sincerely,
> Ovid
> --
> Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
> Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
> Twitter  - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
> Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6

-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
"The Human Hacking Field Guide" - http://xrl.us/bjn8q

Shlomi, so what are you working on? Working on a new wiki about unit testing 
fortunes in freecell? -- Ran Eilam

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[chromatic]

On Monday 27 October 2008 10:45:46 Salve J Nilsen wrote:

> > Remember, this is not a project designed only to say "This code sucks." 
> > Its intent is to encourage people to improve their code.  My code doesn't
> > magically get better when someone finds a bug.  It magically gets better
> > when someone *fixes* a bug.
>
> One is a prerequisite of the other. You have to have some indication that a
> bug exists before you can fix it (let's ignore "accidental bugfixes" for
> now.) So unless you live in a bubble all by yourself, this list will at the
> very least increase the likelyhood of you learning about (in this case
> Kwalitee) bugs.

A public hall of shame that several people on the Perl-QA mailing list did not 
know about has a very marginal effect on increasing the likelihood of 
learning about a problem.  I'm not a statistician, so I can confidently say 
that the chance of that occurring is non-zero.  (Randomly stumbling across 
several billion web pages will *eventually* get you there.)

> This is a good thing. Especially if the scale we're measuring the code is
> sensible, well thought out and relevant. If your ego gets a bruising, too
> bad. The code Kwalitee is more important.

Heaping random, unsolicited, and public abuse on contributors is a fantastic 
way to make sure there are no Kwalitee programs -- in the sense that abusing 
contributors is a great way to make sure that there are no more contributors.

-- c

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[chromatic]

On Monday 27 October 2008 05:40:03 Salve J Nilsen wrote:

> I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
> sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.

> But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press
> rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")

Did you know the Hall of Shame was there?  Several of the people who responded 
to my post didn't know it was there.

How would you feel if some of your work were on the list, had been on the list 
for quite some time, and no one ever told you?

Remember, this is not a project designed only to say "This code sucks."  Its 
intent is to encourage people to improve their code.  My code doesn't 
magically get better when someone finds a bug.  It magically gets better when 
someone *fixes* a bug.

-- c

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[rfisk]

Sad. I think this is a cultural issue which is mitigated in most professional 
organizations when agile is adopted. In my experience, waterfall pits testers 
against developers. In an agile environment that demarcation is blurred.

If I'm reading that report properly it appears as if the top of the list 
contains 'alpha' modules making this report even more disheartening for obvius 
reasons. 

I don't mean to push a particular development process methodology but this 
certainly does more harm to the qa/devoloper relationship that has already been 
damaged industry-wide by ill-conceived development practices.

As somebody who has managed and worked on teams performing development, quality 
assurance and deployment of software products, I've seen first-hand how an 
antagonistic environment spirals downward and detrimentally affects morale and 
quality. 

Certainly its not the report-author's fault that there are some modules that 
may be considered poorly written, but nobody benefits from the report, unless 
one considers rubbing somebody's nose in poop a 'benefit'.
--Original Message--
From: chromatic
Sender: 
To: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
Cc: perl-qa@perl.org
Sent: Oct 23, 2008 13:33
Subject: Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested  
File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

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


Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Apology. Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

[Ovid]

Shlomi,

Given what was said here and my own past statements on wanting to improve 
civility, I apologize to you (and publicly!) because regardless of my opinion 
of your email, I should not have copied the Perl-QA list on that.  It was very 
disrespectful of me.

Sincerely,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
Twitter  - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[Gabor Szabo]

> http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame

It says "Not Found"

thanks domm

  Gabor

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[chromatic]

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 23, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 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?



How about not showing it at all?  What's the intent of having  
something called the "Hall Of Shame"?  Who should feel shame?  Is that  
what you want to tell people who might upload to CPAN?  "Oh, by the  
way, we might point out that we have decided your distro sucks."


Really, does anyone think these ideas through?

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[chromatic]

On Thursday 23 October 2008 06:34:41 Ovid wrote:

> That being said, why are you trying to publicly humiliate people by sending
> this information to Perl-QA? I've contacted Perl-QA to try and find a smoke
> author before, but not to "name and shame".  That just seems rude.

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

-- c

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

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?

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed)

[Andy Lester]

On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:37 PM, 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



A beautiful point, sir.

I kiss you!

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance