[Haskell-community] 2018 state of Haskell survey

Fri Oct 26 12:57:16 UTC 2018

🎉 Hooray! That’s wonderful news! Thank you, Haskell.org <http://haskell.org/> committee, for supporting the survey. 

I plan on releasing this year’s results in the same fashion as last year. 

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:31 AM, Jasper Van der Jeugt <m at jaspervdj.be> wrote:
> 
> Hi Taylor,
> 
> Yes, we're happy to support it from Haskell.org.
> 
> One additional ask from our side would be that the raw results are
> published as well, but I saw in the issue you're already planning on
> doing that.
> 
> Cheers
> Jasper
> 
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:18:30AM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote:
>> We’re one week out from the release of the survey. I plan on spending this weekend putting the finishing touches on it. Can I plan on announcing it as the official state of Haskell 2018 survey, supported by both Haskell Weekly and Haskell.org <http://haskell.org/>? 
>> 
>>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Jasper Van der Jeugt <m at jaspervdj.be> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Taylor,
>>> 
>>> Just a small comment: I would like to keep the survey open a bit longer -- I would suggest two weeks.  This gives us a bit more time to push it out twice to as many channels as possible (once at the start and a reminder after a week or so).  My intuition is that we'll be able to gather significantly more responses that way.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again for organizing this!
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Jasper
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 00:55, Taylor Fausak <taylor at fausak.me <mailto:taylor at fausak.me>> wrote:
>>> Thank you all for the wonderful feedback so far! I greatly appreciate all of it. 
>>> 
>>> I didn’t mean to be exclusionary with my language before, and I thank y’all for correcting me there. “We’re doing this together for the benefit of all” is an excellent way to say what I’m shooting for here. 
>>> 
>>> My goal for the survey is to be useful to many different groups of people: the GHC team, library authors, application developers, repository maintainers, prospective employees, hiring managers, community organizers, and no doubt many more groups that I’m not thinking of right now. I want to avoid results that are neat but not useful. I also want to avoid results that simply throw fuel onto common flame wars.
>>> 
>>> Last year I announced the survey results and provided some commentary. I suspect I’ll do something similar this year, although reading your comments here makes me want to do less analyzing in favor of simply publishing. I am not particularly adept at analyzing survey results and am bound to make some rookie mistakes. In fact, one of the reasons that I published the results last year was so that someone who actually knew what they were doing could slice and dice the data. 
>>> 
>>> As far as scheduling is concerned, I plan to keep the survey open for a week, from November 1st to 7th. Publishing the results should happen relatively quickly after that. I slowed myself down last year by rendering a bunch of graphs, and even so I published on November 15th. 
>>> 
>>> It sounds like the Haskell.org committee is broadly in favor of backing the upcoming Haskell Weekly survey. Is that correct? In either case, what are the next steps? 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Boespflug, Mathieu <m at tweag.io <mailto:m at tweag.io>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Since I was pinged up-thread, might as well chime in. If only to say
>>>> "I agree": selection bias is what it is. Taylor's efforts to come to
>>>> this committee are laudable. And really could help mitigate some
>>>> issues we've seen with other surveys. Selection bias isn't something
>>>> worth agonizing over, provided we're careful to say in the analysis of
>>>> the results: "We found that X% of the respondents of this survey use
>>>> Y", not "X% of Haskell devs use Y".
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:02, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community
>>>> <haskell-community at haskell.org <mailto:haskell-community at haskell.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> | Hi Taylor. I like the way you pose things here: "I don't expect that
>>>>> | to remove selection bias, but it will let me (us, really) say: We're
>>>>> | doing this together for the benefit of all sides". I think that's a
>>>>> | better place to start from.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like this too -- and like Gershom, I'd delete "sides".  We aspire
>>>>> to work together, not on different sides.
>>>>> 
>>>>> | earlier I've been thinking about a bit, where you wrote: "My goal is
>>>>> | for this survey to be *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the
>>>>> | community to broadly accept it's results."
>>>>> 
>>>>> This sounds a bit too exclusive to me, and implicitly critical of other
>>>>> work.  Better to stick to the positives: you simply want the
>>>>> opinions of a broad constituency on a broad range of questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> | Anyway, this is all a long-winded way of suggesting that it might be
>>>>> | good if the purpose of the survey was explicitly set out as trying to
>>>>> | inform developers of haskell libraries and tools (and educational
>>>>> | materials) regarding the systems their potential users work on and
>>>>> | develop, and their habits and practices in doing so, and where they
>>>>> | encounter difficulty. That is explicitly as a way of learning rather
>>>>> | than as any sort of horse-race or popularity contest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That sounds good to me -- but again in drafting the goals I'd stick
>>>>> to the positives, and not speak about horse-races.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Simon
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>>>> Haskell-community at haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community at 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 at haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community at haskell.org>
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community>
>>> -- 
>>> Jasper
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-community/attachments/20181026/0d032f85/attachment.html>