The survey is now open! You can read the announcement post here: http://taylor.fausak.me/2018/11/01/2018-state-of-haskell-survey/ <http://taylor.fausak.me/2018/11/01/2018-state-of-haskell-survey/>
You can go directly to the survey here: https://bit.ly/haskell2018 <https://bit.ly/haskell2018> Or, if you don’t like link shorteners, you can go here: https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf <https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf> > On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Taylor Fausak <tay...@fausak.me> wrote: > > I received confirmation from Airtable that they do not support arbitrary > markup in forms. So I put in separator questions between each of section. > > At this point the survey is ready to publish. I recognize that there are many > more questions that could be asked, but they’ll have to wait until next year. > Thank you all for your feedback! I look forward to sharing the results with > you in a couple weeks. In the meantime, if there’s anything I can do for you, > please let me know. > >> On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Taylor Fausak <tay...@fausak.me >> <mailto:tay...@fausak.me>> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the feedback! >> >> - I would like to separate the survey into sections, but Airtable does not >> provide that functionality. I have sent a message to their support asking if >> I’m just missing it. Worst case scenario I can put some bogus questions in >> to act as dividers. I’ve put an example of such a divider question at the >> top of the survey. >> >> - The “Add an option” questions allow you to select multiple answers rather >> than choosing a single one. I’ve updated the questions to make that clearer >> by adding this help text: “Select all that apply." >> >> - I’ve added a followup question to the one about GHC’s new release >> schedule: "Why do you feel the way that you do about the new GHC release >> schedule?” I’m open to better wording there. >> >> - I have added follow up questions of the form “What would you change about >> X?” where X is the language, compiler, build tool, or package repository. >> Hopefully that will provide meaningful guidance about how to improve those >> things without overwhelming the user with questions. >> >> - For information about using Haskell at work, I think that is covered by >> existing questions. Last year’s survey asked if people used Haskell at work, >> and this year’s added some followup questions to that. Company size is >> covered by the demographic questions at the end. The only missing piece is >> asking about the size of the team of Haskell programmers. Is that worth >> asking about separately? >> >> - I have removed “Official” from the title of the survey. >> >> - I changed the Haskell Prime question to ask about importance rather than >> interest: “How important do you feel it would be to have a new version of >> the Haskell standard?” It uses the answer scale from here: >> https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales >> <https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales> >> >> - I split academic and commercial conferences in the question about >> interacting with the Haskell community. >> >> - For the question about which type of Haskell software is developed at the >> respondents company, would it suffice to ask if the software is used >> internally by other employees and/or externally by customers? Another >> question already covers the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). >> >> - I like the idea of drilling down into performance bottlenecks. How do you >> feel about phrasing it like this: “Which performance bottlenecks does your >> Haskell software typically hit?” With answer choices: CPU, RAM, disk, >> network, other, none.(I’m not sure what you mean by “bound by >> serialization.” Can you expand on that?) >> >> - I think the way that the software runs is covered by another question >> about the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). Is it worth it to have a >> separate question? >> >> I hope that addresses all the feedback so far. If not, please let me know! >> Thanks again! >> >>> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Gershom B <gersh...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:gersh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> HI Taylor. >>> >>> A few thoughts. First, even with joint sponsorship, I don't think >>> saying "Official" in the name of the survey is a good idea. Everything >>> is "official" from whatever group supports it, but that seems besides >>> the point. I think that the intended meaning here is a bit slippery >>> since it can be interpreted as "approved by some body" but is often >>> used to mean "authoritative" and as we've discussed, you can't really >>> be authoritative with things like this, just "better". Ok, that said, >>> on to some other points: >>> >>> "Are you interested in a new version of the Haskell standard?" >>> >>> Interested is a very vague thing to ask. I'd want something more >>> specific like "how important do you feel it would be to have a new >>> version..." >>> >>> On "Where do you interact with the Haskell community?" I think that we >>> should distinguish between "conferences (academic)" and "conferences >>> (commercial)" because ICFP and HaskellX, for example, are very >>> different sorts of things. >>> >>> I'd also like a question, as I mentioned earlier, like "What sort of >>> Haskell software is developed at your company" with options for >>> "in-house" "binaries deployed to customers" and "webapps used by >>> customers" among maybe other options. Also perhaps "is the software >>> you work on A) bound by memory B) bound by processor utilization C) >>> bound by wire/disk speed D) bound by serialization E) not running >>> against any performance limits at this time" and additionally is the >>> software intended A) for continuous (server) operation or B) batched >>> operation or C) interactive user-driven operation. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Gershom >>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM Francesco Ariis <fa...@ariis.it >>> <mailto:fa...@ariis.it>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Taylor, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 02:42:16PM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote: >>>>> Please > take a look at the survey to make sure that you're happy >>>>> with it! Let me know if there are any questions that you would like >>>>> to be added, removed, or changed. You can view the survey here: >>>>> https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf >>>>> <https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf> >>>>> You can deliver feedback to me either in this thread or on GitHub: >>>>> https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206 >>>>> <https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206> >>>> >>>> Suggestions: >>>> - state under which specific one of the "permissive license"s the >>>> results will be available; >>>> - if it not mission critical, axe the last question. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Haskell-community mailing list >>>> Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> >>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >>>> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Haskell-community mailing list >>> Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >>> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community> >> >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
