Despite my complaints yesterday, I did engage the tool including fine tuning the scans for a couple of podlings I’m mentoring and fixing some language in the smaller openoffice.apache.org <http://openoffice.apache.org/> website repository where there 5 issues flagged on 3 pages. At one point the UI froze and I gave up for the day.
I was very surprised today to see that it was taken all down. Was it recorded which repositories had settings changed? One of the podlings is NLPCraft which is a NLP project with language analysis it was easy to clean it up because there is a dictionary file of terms that needed to be skipped. In other case test files. Should you relaunch this then please change the default settings. 1. *.js instead of *.min.js 2. *.css instead of *.min.css 3. Add LICENSE* as some licenses actually use he/she and him/her. Regards, Dave PS. It should have been no surprise that there was massive grumbling on a note like this one. On 2021/08/31 17:57:00, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the tool is useful, but perhaps we’re a little premature? If we could > get some more people like yourself having one on ones with PMCs, that seems > to work better than any form of advertising these services has had so far. If > we could get a subset of the PMCs who really are interested in D&I, then we > could advertise new tools and research findings to them first. If some > communities would prefer to ignore us or similar topics, that’s their choice > as long as they aren’t interfering with other PMCs’ choices. > > Matt Sicker > > > On Aug 31, 2021, at 11:50, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 8/31/21 12:24 PM, sebb wrote: > >> > >> That seems to me to be an overreaction. > > > > Yes, I can see that it would seem that way without a larger context. The > > number of messages I have received on various lists, and off-list, calling > > this effort wrong/bad/evil, have been ... demoralizing, shall we say? > > > >> In my case, I have no complaints about the purpose of the analysis. > >> It's the excessing false positives and UI of the software that is the > >> problem, combined with a poorly worded email. > > > > I appreciate that you have no complaints about the purpose of the analysis. > > Others do, and have made those complaints both very obvious and very > > personal. > > > > While this is often the case with this conversation, the vitriol this time > > has been somewhat disturbing. And that's from someone who has had this > > conversation with probably 200 projects over the past 18 months. > > > >> I think what needs to happen is for a detailed investigation of the > >> results, especially for projects that have lots of hits, so that the > >> scanning can be properly tuned. > >> It's pretty obvious at present that the scanning is far too eager to > >> report issues (and not just master in URLs). > > > > I disagree. I think that highlighting all potential problematic > > words/phrases is part of the message, whether or not the project in > > question feels the need to address all of them. The purpose here is to make > > people aware of how the words/phrases in their code and documentation > > affect other people. > > > >> There also needs to be some work on the UI, to make it easier to > >> ignore individual files, and to make it easier to actually edit the > >> source files. > > > > It is not the goal of the tool to make editing source files easy or even > > possible. It's a code analysis tool. Sure, it could link to the file in the > > target repository, which may be what you're asking for. But it's not > > intended to be a remediation tool. > > > >> There are some other issue no doubt. > >> Once the reports are usable without lots of effort by projects, then > >> maybe start inviting a few random projects to see if they have any > >> feedback on the analysis. > >> Fix any issues, and gradually increase the number of projects. > >> It might be an idea to send a follow-up email to explain why all the > >> projects have been removed. > > > > One of the things we were reprimanded for was sending a cross-project email > > about this topic in the first place. As such, I won't be advocating sending > > a followup email on the same topic. Someone else is, of course, welcome to > > pursue that avenue. > > > >> Though I think it would have been better to keep the projects (apart > >> from retired ones), but send an email to say that the analyses are > >> currently at the alpha stage, and solicit feedback on improving the > >> scanning. > > > > They're *not* at an alpha stage. Those words *do* appear in the code. And > > I'm already using this same tool elsewhere, as part of my day job. It's a > > tool. It wasn't the tool that people objected to. It was the analysis. > > > >> That way might result in analyses that projects actually want. > > > > My take-away was that the projects *don't* want this analysis. > > > > > > -- > > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com > > @rbowen >
