[Haskell-cafe] Haskellers.com skills list moderation?

[Michael Snoyman]

OK, after reviewing the list again, here's some more that are on the
chopping block, given the new outlook we've been establishing here.
Speak up if you want it saved:

Denotational design
Programming using Arrows
Transactional business applications development
Categorical Programming

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
> In case anyway was worried, I *have* been following this thread, and
> purposely not sticking my nose in to see what people's opinions are.
> I've really appreciated the discussion; let me give my overall
> response to everything:
>
> It's good to remember that a user can always add whatever information
> they want to their self-description. The main reason for the skills
> list is so that employers and anyone else seeking Haskellers can
> easily get a list of people. As such, the skills should be something
> informative that people really want to search for.
>
> I'm pretty convinced that Mathematics as-is is a bad idea. I can't
> imagine *anyone* saying "I want a Haskeller who knows math" (maths for
> you Brits), it just doesn't say anything.
>
> We also need to make things much more explicit. "Cabal, packaging,
> build and distribution tools" really doesn't explain whether it means
> I can tweak Cabal, or if I can write a cabal file, or if I can build
> something that's on Hackage. The breakdown John Lato gave ("Cabal
> internals" and "Software packaging/distribution tools") sounds good to
> me.
>
> On this one you may call be biased, but I think keeping Happstack and
> Yesod on their own makes perfect sense. If I were an employer looking
> to hire someone to work on a project, I would be looking to see that
> they can use my tool of choice. Obviously we need to draw a line
> somewhere; putting up that you can use the failure package seems silly
> (I'm purposely picking on one of my own packages). But the web
> frameworks are entire ecosystems of their own, and I think it makes
> sense to keep them as-is.
>
> The issue of having to judge something in which I'm not an expert is
> definitely true. I don't have any experience with Attribute Grammar,
> for instance, and so feel ill-equipped to make a judgement on that.
> I'll trust the list on this, which seems to indicate leaving it in.
> I'll probably need to ask similar questions in the future.
>
> I also like the idea of dropping skills that everyone has. Algorithmic
> Problem Solving may very well fit in that category.
>
> Finally, the idea of a certification process is great. But I'm not
> going to do it ;).
>
> If I don't hear any major complaining in the next few hours, I'll
> implement what I've said above.
>
> Michael
>