On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 02:47 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> Yes it would be a signal but a useless signal, not?

You seem to aim for arbitrarily blocking developers from making
decisions by preventing them from having data.  This won't work. 
Firstly, because *we have* to make decisions, and the worse data we
have, the more arbitrary decisions will be.  Secondly, because we always
will have some data, it will probably be worse than what's being
proposed here.

Generally, having more data means making better informed decisions.
Of course, there's always the potential of having too much data (though
I honestly don't think we're anywhere near that).  There's also
the potential of being lazy and just taking the easiest available data. 
There's no way around that but then, you can also be lazy and make
decisions ignoring any data.

For example, one kind of data we have right now are bugs.  So a package
fails for me in an obvious way yet there's no bug open.  Does that mean
that the package has zero users?  Otherwise someone would have reported
the problem, right?  So here go last rites.

Gentoostats could tell me 'hey, this package has bunch of users still'. 
This questions my first assessment -- 'oh, they probably haven't had to
rebuild it since ...'

If I have no data, we have to rely on 'gut feelings'.  I have a gut
feeling that this package looks useless, why bother.  Is that more
worthwhile than having *some* number to look at?  Even if the data is
biased towards specific kind of users, it would probably work better
than guessing.  And if it looks unreasonable, nobody stops you from
guessing.  I guess that an informed guess is better than a random guess.

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to