On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Eric Evans <eev...@acunu.com> wrote: >> There probably is a rather large group of "shadow" users whose >> (valuable?) input doesn't make it to the list or bug tracker. It >> sounds like Gary is questioning whether we should be giving these >> people a voice. Assuming I have that right, I agree that's a very >> good question. This is a community-based project after all. > > First, as attractive (and easy!) as it is to live inside our echo > chamber, yes, I do think we should give them a voice. Of course, that > doesn't mean you're obliged to listen to it. If you don't think that > is a valuable source of input for prioritizing your work, you're free > to ignore it.
Assuming that there were no strings attached to collecting the data, I would agree completely. But since your proposing that we add code to something that we all use, it's fair to question the benefit. > Second, what I'm talking about is a different type of data from what > you get on jira + ML. Those are "negative" sources of information -- > you mostly only find out someone is using compression if they have a > problem with it. How many people are using it with no problems? That > is what this would let us start to find out. There's no doubt that information is power. That's both the source of the appeal, and the potential to scare off users. Incidentally, I suspect it's those very same shadow-users we stand to scare off. It might be the case that we don't know whether or not they're using compression now, but we won't necessarily know how many we've lost if we starting sending data offsite either. -- Eric Evans Acunu | http://www.acunu.com | @acunu
