Update question: some user data

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 01:04:03PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > It very well might.  But this poll is poorly worded and only
> >
> > That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way,
> > might I ask?
> >
> 
> Adventurous and Conservative are both subjective.  I bet if you asked
> "Would you prefer Fedora have fewer updates or more updates" you'd have a
> completely different result on your hands.  It's also more objective.
> Even asking changing adventurous to "newer and less stable" to "slower and
> more stable" would probably change the results a bit.  There's quite a
> science to this stuff, it's not to be taken lightly.
> 
Note that "newer and less stable" vs "older and more stable" isn't true of
the proposals either unless someone wants to put the idea of mandatory
backports on the table.  (And even then... backports come with their own
potential regressions as the person doing the backport might not notice all
the pieces that were changed across several patches).

"more updates" vs "fewer updates" is closer to correct although even then,
we could end up with more updates if a maintainer chooses to backport fixes
but does so a few at a time (due to having small increments of time over
a long period rather than one large increment of time at long intervals).

The poll is what the poll is.... I think Adam's original statement that it
shouldn't be the sole basis of an opinion but that it should be used to
remember that what people want might not look anything like what we think
they want is the best way to view the data.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100307/65dcb38d/attachment.bin