On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:43:19 AM UTC+1, Yuraeitha wrote: > This isn't directed directly at anyone in particular, but I don't get why > there is all the fuss about a quality issue though, after all, these > guides/scripts are meant to have many eyes on them and critical views. Like > others have said too. Take for example the suggestion with the multiple > sub-forums having moderator volunteers (who have proper insight) moving them > along as they mature. This would heighten the quality, by only accepting > guides/scripts which had proper review of knowledgeable people, would be put > forward. Similar can be done with individual works too, which can be put > under review before acknowledged. > > NASA is doing something similar to this for their research projects, although > it does hinder their innovation, but it does increase efficiency on cost and > reliability of projects, while still preserving some levels of innovation in > it. > > The point here, is that nothing gets through the process before it had proper > review, it will only come through if it has a certain quality to it. If > creators misses something important, or ignores vital security/reliability > implications, this will more likely than not be caught in the review process. > Also the review system could be made so that it can withdraw it's > acknowledgments, thereby if anyone should ever finds a reliability/security > issue, it can be taken back as well. > > If people run un-reviewed or criticized guides/scripts, despite being warned > not to, or to be careful and try to understand what the script/guides does > before executing it, then if they don't do that, it's their own fault. > > What worries me a bit, are self-fulfilling prophecies, by being worried about > an issue, that the person essentially creates the issue by focusing too hard > on it. Many of these issues we can solve, it's not rocket science, they're > not impossible obstacles that can't be overcome. The problem though, is if > some don't want to consider the whole full complete picture, and focuses too > hard on their self-fulfilling prophecies. We need to take a step back and > reflect more on a holistic and abstract level, before returning to the > details again, and then constantly shape the big picture until it improves. > > If guides/scripts are constantly checked and corrected every time someone > finds a flaw in them, then what's the issue? Why is this issue blown so much > out of proportion? We're talking about a review system no one else is doing > on the internet here (maybe I overlooked it, the internet is massive, but > it's not common knowledge at least). > > Generally, the criticism that follow other poor guides/scripts on the > internet, does not automatically warrant criticism of guides that are put > through an open review system like this. > > I don't want to see criticisms born from examples of other places, when a > review suggestion is different from any of these places the criticisms are > born. Lets be practical about this, we can't just move criticisms from one > place to another, without first taking into account if the system produces > the same issues or not. I'm not saying this to any particular person, but an > attempt to try get back on the ground again, we're moving too far into the > details without looking at the big picture. <-- if a person does that too > much, they become legitimately insane as a result, so too a discussion can > become insane too. We need some practical reality checks here and stay on the > ground. > > It's a bit of irony that wanting closed development by few developers only, > kind of echo's the mentality of closed proprietary code, rather than the > mentality of open source. The whole idea of open source code, is reviews and > checks, this is just a shift towards doing the same with guides/scripts as > well.
I mean, if anyone think the NASA approach is flawed, good luck trying to argue against it without some pretty solid reasoning. It's true that innovation is hindered some (but not totally), but they do manage to cut down cost and increase reliability. So too, the same should be for open community scripts/guides. It'd be exactly the same NASA is doing for their development projects. Who is still saying it will produce bad guides/scripts? I mean, if anything, these checks do increase the reliability/security. Taking examples from elsewhere on the internet is futile and pointless, because no one (or very few) are doing the same as NASA is doing to ensure quality checks. And this is essentially what is being proposed here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/6a2dfcc0-4dce-46c6-bada-9abed1104289%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
