On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
I can see the point of removing orphans but I still think that using pkgstats as a metric is a bad idea for everything else. Casual users, i.e. those who are not actively involved on the forum or IRC won't even be aware of pkgstats. Really, who installs a distro and actively looks for a way to submit user data? And please don't try to tell me that the only users who matter are the ones who form the core community.
Then you have the paranoid who won't submit anything, even if they're a small group. Ultimately pkgstats only reflect the usage of a small group of people with possibly skewed interests. (There should be a few statisticians around so it would be interesting to hear their analysis of this... let's face it, most people fail at interpret ting statistical data and ultimately do so with a bias that supports their own agenda... *cough*politicians*cough*.)*
+57, these are all topics that were brought up during the original discussion of using pkgstats as a means to promote packages from unsupported to community, and they were never really addressed. Our system of 10 votes or 1% usage in pkgstats is completely arbitrary. We don't have any statistical means of backing up what those numbers actually mean; they were picked pretty much just because they sounded good. There was even a long-time Trusted User who resigned due to the frustration of arguing over these issues. Anyway, my take on it is that as long as the packages aren't orphans that have been out of date for a *long* time, then what's the harm in keeping them in the repo? If the packages are being maintained anyway, it benefits everyone by having them in there, and unless we're running dangerously low on resources, the cleanup process isn't that necessary. If we _are_ running dangerously low on resources, is it better to drop software that may be used by a lot of people, or would it be better to campaign to raise some money for additional resources? I'm not saying that we never need to prune things up, but at this point in time, we don't have any good means of determining what needs to go aside from the personal judgement of our TUs, which luckily, is pretty reliable. -- Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer