-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Process for experimental maintainer change #37
Comments
Maintainer evaluation will be done via a questionnaire adapted from
|
@thomaskrause Can you please have a look at this ☝️ and let me know what you think? |
Here are my two cents about it:
|
Thanks! As a general point, I think we should take out the programming paradigm question as it isn't of much interest in our context. I think I had it originally in strikethrough but it ended up in the table for some reason...
The original authors used 1-10 & 1-5. Pros and cons for even or odd scales have been highly debated, with some of the cons of having a mid-point being that it's unclear what the mid-point is supposed to represent, and that it is being used in controversial research to give people an easy way out. Seeing that we don't deal with controversial research here (IMHO), my original hunch was to stick with the 1-10 scale for the two broader questions (programming experience & maintenance experience) as they basically intrinsically ask for something like levels, where 10 is the perceived "perfection". What are your reasons for introducing a mid-point for these two? This is also something that we'd have to argue for when describing the setup of the questionnaire in the paper. I think 1-5 is suitable for the more detailed questions, also because a mid-point makes sense there, as some are comparison questions.
Agree. Should we change to something like "peers" (perhaps too general and hard to understand), or "people in the same role as you" (which can be interpreted to mean role within the project, career stage, or general experience)? Or do you think we shuold drop it altogether?
Yes, I agree. May make sense to define a team size. A quick search for "what is the size of a programming team" yielded results (e.g., 1, 2, 3) that suggest a common team size between 3-5 and 10. As I think that it's probably unusual in a research setting (at our end, the tail end of project sizes) to have teams as large as 10, I'd suggest to change to "programming in a team of 5 or more people", which to my mind already means "a large team".
So you propose to change to "at what age did you enroll"? To circumvent scaring off non-academics, we could also ask "at what age did you start programming", which would also be comparable to age. |
On another note: how do you think we should implement this questionnaire. I have been thinking Google Forms/Limesurvey, but it may be good to have this as a special type of issue template? |
Yes, lets strike it. Most education in universities are very similar in their paradigms and if people used Java is still included (and more relevant.
I am fine with keeping the scales like the original paper to allow comparison. I just found it odd that we are forcing people to choose one side some question but not in others.
If we change it to "peers" we still can't compare it, since we don't know what the peers are (we would need to ask if someone is still studying). I'm for dropping it, since we already have the "compared with 10 years expert" question which should make it possible to compare results.
I think we should aim for "non-personal" size and vote for "programming in a team of 3 or more people (including non-programmers)". This includes student projects at universities that mimic professional software development and also the typical situation in academia with PIs, collegues as users etc. Also, I think a lot of professional startups start with less than 5 people.
We already ask for "For how many years have you been programming?" which with the current age gives the start age. I think it would be nice to know the academic experience so I would still include the original question with the "does not apply" option added to it and also specifying that this is about professional computer science education: "How many years did you study in computer science or a related field?" This ignores when people start (so we can't distinguish people studying computer science as second study) but gives us an idea of the depth of the education (bachelor vs. master).
We can use the HU LimeSurvey and download and archive the questionaire definition backup files. |
@thomaskrause This then is the final version of the questionnaire, please review. Note: I have added a subqestions If you can give me a 👍 (or further comment), I'll construct the Limesurvey questionnaire, ask you to pretest, and export the definition backup + publish on Zenodo.
|
Published questionnaire at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4773927. Also deployed on the HU LimeSurvey instance. |
@thomaskrause We (i.e., you 😉) need to do a release before the actual maintainer change. And perhaps even fix hexatomic/hexatomic#316. |
Options for solving the external contributor/CI/code analysis/security issue on PRs:
|
Note: Any abnormal (i.e. not expected maintainer/contributor) interaction between @bbunzeck & @sdruskat or @thomaskrause is an intervention.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: