Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

# 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 cpan

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 certai

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

# 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! >> >>

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

# 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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 some

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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.

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 n

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 p

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 d

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 in

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 k

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 deri

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

* 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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

* 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... bu

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 c

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 dedicate

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 bes

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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, pl

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

# 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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 > >>> d

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 yo

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

--- 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,

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

--- 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 awf

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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. >> >

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 onl

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 wh

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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. Cou

Re: Apology. Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 disrespec

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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 p

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

tt-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, chr

Apology. Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee

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

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

> 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)

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

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

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 n

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

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/hig

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

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/h