Hi Taylor. We're discussing this in the committee. I agree that to the extent they can accurately reflect something, language surveys are useful, and appreciate that you want to run a useful survey, and certainly want to encourage and help you in making it as broad and useful as possible. That said, I don't know if slapping a "haskell.org" label on the survey will help manage the biggest drivers of selection bias -- which is not only about who chooses to respond, but about who is reached through what mechanisms. (I don't know the relative importance of response-bias vs. outreach-bias in general, and would be curious if somebody has some good research on that to point to). I honestly don't know if we have enough channels _in general_ to do a good survey, no matter who runs it or how at all! Regardless of the decision we come to, here are a few of my personal thoughts on the questions you have thus far, and what could be added: 1) A question "how did you hear about this survey" -- this could at least help to disentangle outreach-bias, or notice it, depending on if it induces any correlations. 2) A question on how long after a new GHC release users upgrade -- both personally, and at work. 3) Distinguishing between personal and work build-systems in the relevant question. 4) I think the sorts of questions that make sense to ask in this early part can resemble those in the first part of the Go survey: https://blog.golang.org/survey2017-results (I especially like the questions about the area of development and server vs cli apps vs libraries). I also like their questions about what environments teams deploy programs to. It would also be worth asking if the apps developed are customer-facing or internal. 5) I think an interesting question would be what preferred js solution, if any, teams adopt -- i.e. ghcjs, typescript, purescript, raw js, etc. 6) for the "why did you stop" question, there are a good range of potential multi-choice answers that can be drawn from with the rust user survey: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/09/05/Rust-2017-Survey-Results.html Cheers, Gershom On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM Taylor Fausak wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what official support would look like. A few things come to mind:

1. Simply putting "official" somewhere in the title, such as: Official 2018 state of Haskell survey.

2. Putting something about Haskell.org in the description of the survey, such as: Sponsored by Haskell.org.

3. Announcing the survey through channels that I may not be aware of. Or helping me announce the survey through various channels (mailing lists, Reddit, and so on) by mentioning Haskell.org.

I'm sure there are more ways that I'm not thinking of.

Perhaps it would be better to state my goal and see what, if anything, can be to achieve that goal? My goal is for this survey to be *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the community to broadly accept it results. In particular I would like to avoid reactions like these to the recent FP Complete survey:

...

I browse r/haskell all the time and follow FPco on Twitter, and I wasn't aware of this survey. [1]

...

It should not be surprising to think that fp complete has much better outreach to Stackage users than to non Stackage users. [2]

...

Any survey hosted by FPComplete is biased towards users of stack, for reasons that should be self evident. [3]

Similar sentiments have been expressed about last year's Haskell Weekly survey:

...

Haskell Weekly's reputation is tainted as it appears to be seen as partisan (and I tend to agree). [4]

...

one of those surveys is from FP Complete and one of them is from someone who I would consider very partisan in these kind of discussions. [5]

...

For the love of god stop posting those surveys. They're not convincing and obviously flawed. [6]

I don't expect to be able to make everyone happy, but I think that presenting this year's survey as sponsored by both Haskell Weekly and Haskell.org would go a long way toward making it acceptable to a broad range of the Haskell community.

I hope that helps!

[1]: https://np.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/9mm05d/2018_haskell_survey_results/... [2]: https://np.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/8tc8pr/fp_complete_launches_new_blo... [3]: https://np.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/9mm05d/2018_haskell_survey_results/... [4]: https://np.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/9mm05d/2018_haskell_survey_results/... [5]: https://np.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/8tc8pr/fp_complete_launches_new_blo... [6]: https://np.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/8uw9hw/psa_cabal_breaks_with_yaml08...

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:

Hi Taylor,

What does official support look like? I don't think there's anything above and beyond what you're already doing.

Thanks, Neil

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 3:49 pm, Taylor Fausak wrote:

(I have CCed because the haskell-community mailing list seems relatively quiet and I want to make sure this is seen.)

Hello! My name is Taylor Fausak. I run the Haskell Weekly newsletter. Last year I published a survey [1] for the Haskell community. I collected and reported [2] on about 1,335 responses. I plan on publishing another survey this year on the same date, November 1st. I am developing it in the open again [3] and would love to hear from any interested parties. Please let me know if you have any ideas about the survey!

This year I am interested in making the survey official by seeking support from Haskell.org. Is such a thing possible and desirable?

Thanks for your consideration! I hope to hear from you soon.

[1]: https://haskellweekly.news/surveys/2017.html [2]: https://taylor.fausak.me/2017/11/15/2017-state-of-haskell-survey-results/ [3]: https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206 _______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

The GHC team (coincidentally) is cooking up a very short survey that is intended to help guide our strategic priorities. There is only one substantial question: Imagine that you had one developer working on GHC for six months full-time, that you were paying for yourself. What would you ask that person to do? Keep in mind that the project should be within GHC itself and tractable in a six-month time-frame. It has a rather different purpose to Taylor's proposed survey and FP Complete's, because it is not comprehensive, but instead focuses on a single question about a single artefact. Returning to Taylor's question list, yes, it would be interesting to know whether the increased release tempo is perceived as helpful or unhelpful. (It's helpful for the development /process/ because it makes reduces the pressure to squeeze "just one more thing" into a release: the next bus will be along in only 6 months.) Incidentally, I for one think that it's a Good Thing that you included FP Complete's survey in the HWN, Taylor. First, I think it's a substantial and interesting piece of work -- and /any/ survey is vulnerable to response bias. Second, I don’t think anyone should expect you as HWN editor to play a role as community censor. Third, deliberately excluding it would in itself be a divisive act in a community that needs less division and more love. You do a fantastic job with HWN. Please keep doing it! Thanks Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Haskell-community On | Behalf Of Gershom B | Sent: 15 October 2018 01:56 | To: taylor@fausak.me; Mathieu Boespflug ; Ben Gamari | | Cc: haskell-community@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [Haskell-community] 2018 state of Haskell survey | | (cc mathieu boespflug, ben gamari) | | One more thought: | | mathieu, ben -- do you think you would be interested in any questions | on the frequency of ghc releases -- if people appreciate more | frequent, smaller releases, or not, etc? | | I wonder if there are any other questions as well about core libraries | vs. performance vs. "big features" (like type system things) vs. small | ergonomic features etc. that the core ghc team might be interested in | sounding out people on, bearing in mind the necessary limitations of | survey derived data. | | --g | On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 8:36 PM Gershom B wrote: | > | > Hi Taylor. | > | > We're discussing this in the committee. I agree that to the extent | > they can accurately reflect something, language surveys are useful, | > and appreciate that you want to run a useful survey, and certainly | > want to encourage and help you in making it as broad and useful as | > possible. That said, I don't know if slapping a "haskell.org" label on | > the survey will help manage the biggest drivers of selection bias -- | > which is not only about who chooses to respond, but about who is | > reached through what mechanisms. (I don't know the relative importance | > of response-bias vs. outreach-bias in general, and would be curious if | > somebody has some good research on that to point to). I honestly don't | > know if we have enough channels _in general_ to do a good survey, no | > matter who runs it or how at all! Regardless of the decision we come | > to, here are a few of my personal thoughts on the questions you have | > thus far, and what could be added: | > | > 1) A question "how did you hear about this survey" -- this could at | > least help to disentangle outreach-bias, or notice it, depending on if | > it induces any correlations. | > | > 2) A question on how long after a new GHC release users upgrade -- | > both personally, and at work. | > | > 3) Distinguishing between personal and work build-systems in the | > relevant question. | > | > 4) I think the sorts of questions that make sense to ask in this early | > part can resemble those in the first part of the Go survey: | > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.go | lang.org%2Fsurvey2017- | results&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2 | 008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367516175958 | 02229&sdata=2wB5Ph5%2Be6wZm0CWP7Yzx%2Fxe4dOlKHqNPKZReiJmE50%3D&r | eserved=0 (I especially like the | > questions about the area of development and server vs cli apps vs | > libraries). I also like their questions about what environments teams | > deploy programs to. It would also be worth asking if the apps | > developed are customer-facing or internal. | > | > 5) I think an interesting question would be what preferred js | > solution, if any, teams adopt -- i.e. ghcjs, typescript, purescript, | > raw js, etc. | > | > 6) for the "why did you stop" question, there are a good range of | > potential multi-choice answers that can be drawn from with the rust | > user survey: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.ru | st-lang.org%2F2017%2F09%2F05%2FRust-2017-Survey- | Results.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e42 | 0bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161 | 7595802229&sdata=MpnYeOui%2FfTPfpYRLlzzpStJHqYWJ4ENZd77qdrQ1BY%3D&am | p;reserved=0 | > | > Cheers, | > Gershom | > | > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM Taylor Fausak | wrote: | > > | > > I'm not entirely sure what official support would look like. A few | things come to mind: | > > | > > 1. Simply putting "official" somewhere in the title, such as: | Official 2018 state of Haskell survey. | > > | > > 2. Putting something about Haskell.org in the description of the | survey, such as: Sponsored by Haskell.org. | > > | > > 3. Announcing the survey through channels that I may not be aware | of. Or helping me announce the survey through various channels (mailing | lists, Reddit, and so on) by mentioning Haskell.org. | > > | > > I'm sure there are more ways that I'm not thinking of. | > > | > > Perhaps it would be better to state my goal and see what, if | anything, can be to achieve that goal? My goal is for this survey to be | *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the community to broadly | accept it results. In particular I would like to avoid reactions like | these to the recent FP Complete survey: | > > | > > > I browse r/haskell all the time and follow FPco on Twitter, and I | wasn't aware of this survey. [1] | > > | > > > It should not be surprising to think that fp complete has much | better outreach to Stackage users than to non Stackage users. [2] | > > | > > > Any survey hosted by FPComplete is biased towards users of stack, | for reasons that should be self evident. [3] | > > | > > Similar sentiments have been expressed about last year's Haskell | Weekly survey: | > > | > > > Haskell Weekly's reputation is tainted as it appears to be seen as | partisan (and I tend to agree). [4] | > > | > > > one of those surveys is from FP Complete and one of them is from | someone who I would consider very partisan in these kind of discussions. | [5] | > > | > > > For the love of god stop posting those surveys. They're not | convincing and obviously flawed. [6] | > > | > > I don't expect to be able to make everyone happy, but I think that | presenting this year's survey as sponsored by both Haskell Weekly and | Haskell.org would go a long way toward making it acceptable to a broad | range of the Haskell community. | > > | > > I hope that helps! | > > | > > [1]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | Fe7gplya%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | 595802229&sdata=X518Wt%2BsB5yepxQO7iKxYzbcOBqNTwH4QvesKNVccBg%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > > [2]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8tc8pr%2Ffp_complete_launches_new_bloc | kchain_auditing%2Fe188ftv%2F%3Fcontext%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40 | microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 | d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595802229&sdata=4oPTVet8hrgE2lTzjt%2B | 02f13o%2Fq%2BOrnGoITlsBsdKgw%3D&reserved=0 | > > [3]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | Fe7gpfwe%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | 595802229&sdata=9L8ztYN3kOArpdAhOiydFI6gfuz8Evu5%2FmtHZ5j3vyY%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > > [4]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | Fe7ka8xn%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | 595802229&sdata=tpyLQ%2BA3Lj4GLfxjMUgglfRyl46jH6go1ZE3OhVLwLo%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > > [5]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8tc8pr%2Ffp_complete_launches_new_bloc | kchain_auditing%2Fe187pzq%2F%3Fcontext%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40 | microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 | d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=ZbjRYFCXl4rraHE%2Bno7 | kefm5N3%2FvtNpaI%2FXTz3N6i7w%3D&reserved=0 | > > [6]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8uw9hw%2Fpsa_cabal_breaks_with_yaml083 | 1_on_ghc_710_and%2Fe1lfzgr%2F%3Fcontext%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%4 | 0microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab | 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=oyy8raidob%2Bjf8Evw0 | Kb6aCul0knqYlOlxN8zLjzl3I%3D&reserved=0 | > > | > > | > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote: | > > | > > Hi Taylor, | > > | > > What does official support look like? I don't think there's anything | above and beyond what you're already doing. | > > | > > Thanks, Neil | > > | > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 3:49 pm, Taylor Fausak | wrote: | > > | > > (I have CCed because the haskell-community | mailing list seems relatively quiet and I want to make sure this is | seen.) | > > | > > Hello! My name is Taylor Fausak. I run the Haskell Weekly | newsletter. Last year I published a survey [1] for the Haskell | community. I collected and reported [2] on about 1,335 responses. I plan | on publishing another survey this year on the same date, November 1st. I | am developing it in the open again [3] and would love to hear from any | interested parties. Please let me know if you have any ideas about the | survey! | > > | > > This year I am interested in making the survey official by seeking | support from Haskell.org. Is such a thing possible and desirable? | > > | > > Thanks for your consideration! I hope to hear from you soon. | > > | > > [1]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhaskell | weekly.news%2Fsurveys%2F2017.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft | .com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db | 47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=0eGdCpPFIyxgNp5YNXvP6TZQMAvTJ% | 2BIck4UvSV7wWSU%3D&reserved=0 | > > [2]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaylor. | fausak.me%2F2017%2F11%2F15%2F2017-state-of-haskell-survey- | results%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420b | bf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367516175 | 95812242&sdata=QZjow3PKFG7BitCQCdTe7xW%2BXl4YA4ICVmA%2B87GXOCs%3D&am | p;reserved=0 | > > [3]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fhaskellweekly%2Fhaskellweekly.github.io%2Fissues%2F206&data=02 | %7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f | 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=v2b | W4fjDtWrJnKACnQaoLRoaYw0kADGucwasn2X0wtI%3D&reserved=0 | > > _______________________________________________ | > > Haskell-community mailing list | > > Haskell-community@haskell.org | > > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | mp;reserved=0 | > > | > > | > > _______________________________________________ | > > Haskell-community mailing list | > > Haskell-community@haskell.org | > > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | mp;reserved=0 | _______________________________________________ | Haskell-community mailing list | Haskell-community@haskell.org | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | mp;reserved=0

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 personally would just say "all" and remove the word "sides" -- there certainly are sides and alignments, but in my ideal world, the "sides" would be episodic with regards to particular issues and decisions, and vary with regards to them rather than having a cross-cutting us/them over time, which can be harmful. I think we can get there!) I see it in positive contrast to something 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." I do think it is good to start with what a goal for a survey would be, and I was somewhat surprised that the Clojure, etc. surveys I looked at didn't say explicitly what their goal was. I don't think there's necessarily *the* authoritative survey on many things though -- in election polling, for example, Nate Silver made a name for himself by looking at a _lot_ of surveys, understanding that none was authoritative, and trying to use statistics to interpolate information between them. Every survey will have strengths and weaknesses in what it represents and what it asks and what we can learn from it. So I don't think that people didn't "accept the results" of the fpco survey, for example. I think they accepted them _as results of a particular survey_ with all the attendant caveats that may entail. So maybe a better way to put it is that the desire is to have as representative a survey as possible, and the working idea, at least is that haskell.org backing would help extend the reach and response to it. Some of the anxiety in that reddit thread reflects, I think, the concern that poll results would be used as _prescriptive_ rather than _descriptive_ -- as has been the case in the past. I.e. "since the survey says that some percent of people do X, then Y". So the anxiety is that people don't want to participate in something that they are worried is going to be more a popularity contest than a way of just sounding out current moods and practices. (by the way, Simon -- I don't think people were complaining that HWN gave links to the FPCo survey -- rather they were opining more generally that the relative percentages of any given survey are subject to sample bias, some more than others, and as such one shouldn't take the percentages yielded by such surveys as the "true" measure of any particular distribution -- rather they're just the distribution among those who answered the survey, almost by definition. In particular, the "stop posting these surveys" comment was made in the heat of one or another flamewar, about people invoking the surveys in the _context_ of the flamewar, not about people posting surveys in a more general sense. That said I too am glad Taylor has been carrying on the weekly haskell torch.). Another related thought that hit me -- and here, perhaps working with others in _analyzing_ the results could be useful -- is that percentages of X vs. Y are in many ways less informative -- they're more subject to sample bias, and really all they tell you, assuming that they're not insignificant, is that there is a measurable and significant amount of people who answer X or Y. Far more interesting are the cross-sectional correlations. These let us ask questions about what sorts of things go together, and let us get a sense of different clusters of users with different concerns, niches, and needs. Furthermore, almost definitionally, correlations are more stable across variations in sampling than are absolute relationships. (There's probably something really interesting mathematical here that I'm curious about -- statistical correlation as a form of symmetry-invariance of parametricity [and stability as a measure of how "correlations fail to correlate" as perhaps reflecting higher topological structure] -- references welcome!). 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. If things are framed in this way, then while having as broad a range of users surveyed as possible is still good, the problem of sample bias becomes much less significant, because the answers ascertained to these sorts of questions from a survey are good answers, even in the presence of such problems. And this also helps frame what a good analysis and writeup of survey results is, because it helps pick out the interesting questions one would use survey data to answer. On a smaller and more concrete note -- I don't think I'd be interested in what particular JS frameworks haskell users picked. I want to know if they have an FP solution to the "javascript problem", not what non-fp JS flavor of the month they're using currently. (I may be in a minority here :-)) And I also agree that there is a concern in adding too many questions -- I noticed a recent rust survey attributed its higher response rate in part to having cut down on how many questions it asked. Cheers, Gershom On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:42 PM Taylor Fausak wrote:

Thanks for the kind words, Simon! They mean a lot :)

I would be happy to include questions that would benefit the GHC team, including:

- Simon's question - Reaction to the new pace of GHC releases - Target of the GHC team's focus: performance, features, ergonomics, etc. - Average wait time before upgrading GHC

Are there any other questions the GHC team would be interested in asking? Perhaps I should ask on a different mailing list.

In response to Gershom's comments:

1. Asking how people heard about the survey is a great idea. Not only would it let me identify the best ways to reach people, it could also be useful in dealing with selection bias.

2. Addressed above.

3. In general, distinguishing between work and home is something I would love to do for basically every question. Unfortunately I think that would balloon the size of the survey. Maybe identifying a few key questions for the work/home split would be the best way to go? Build systems, as you identified, are certainly one of those key questions. Maybe GHC versions used is another?

4. I also like Go's survey and have been trying to crib as much as I can from it. Questions worth asking: - Area of development (web, embedded, etc.) - Type of development (server, CLI, desktop, library, etc.) - Deploy environments / infrastructure - Internal versus external

5. Asking about JS solutions for web developers is a great idea! I like the choices you've given, and there are a whole slew of JS libraries to include as well, such as React or Vue.

6. Giving multiple choice answers to the "why did you stop" question (and, in fact, as many questions as possible) is awesome and would make the results much easier to digest. It also makes things easier to compare across time, which could be used to gauge the effectiveness of various endeavors.

Thank you all for your feedback so far! I am very excited about this year's survey. I want to include as many useful questions as I can without overwhelming respondents. As I continue to develop the survey, I constantly ask myself this question: "How would I act on responses to this question?" For example, last year's survey asked if people had contributed to an open source Haskell project. I suspect I will exclude that question because it's not really actionable.

With regards to Haskell.org sponsorship, I still think that throwing around the words "official" and "Haskell.org" would do a lot in terms of credibility. 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. And if people have problems with the survey, I want them to feel comfortable trying to fix those problems, even if they're not on my "side".

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018, at 3:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

...

The GHC team (coincidentally) is cooking up a very short survey that is intended to help guide our strategic priorities.

There is only one substantial question:

Imagine that you had one developer working on GHC for six months full-time, that you were paying for yourself. What would you ask that person to do? Keep in mind that the project should be within GHC itself and tractable in a six-month time-frame.

It has a rather different purpose to Taylor's proposed survey and FP Complete's, because it is not comprehensive, but instead focuses on a single question about a single artefact.

Returning to Taylor's question list, yes, it would be interesting to know whether the increased release tempo is perceived as helpful or unhelpful. (It's helpful for the development /process/ because it makes reduces the pressure to squeeze "just one more thing" into a release: the next bus will be along in only 6 months.)

Incidentally, I for one think that it's a Good Thing that you included FP Complete's survey in the HWN, Taylor. First, I think it's a substantial and interesting piece of work -- and /any/ survey is vulnerable to response bias. Second, I don’t think anyone should expect you as HWN editor to play a role as community censor. Third, deliberately excluding it would in itself be a divisive act in a community that needs less division and more love.

You do a fantastic job with HWN. Please keep doing it!

Thanks

Simon

| -----Original Message----- | From: Haskell-community On | Behalf Of Gershom B | Sent: 15 October 2018 01:56 | To: taylor@fausak.me; Mathieu Boespflug ; Ben Gamari | | Cc: haskell-community@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [Haskell-community] 2018 state of Haskell survey | | (cc mathieu boespflug, ben gamari) | | One more thought: | | mathieu, ben -- do you think you would be interested in any questions | on the frequency of ghc releases -- if people appreciate more | frequent, smaller releases, or not, etc? | | I wonder if there are any other questions as well about core libraries | vs. performance vs. "big features" (like type system things) vs. small | ergonomic features etc. that the core ghc team might be interested in | sounding out people on, bearing in mind the necessary limitations of | survey derived data. | | --g | On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 8:36 PM Gershom B wrote: | > | > Hi Taylor. | > | > We're discussing this in the committee. I agree that to the extent | > they can accurately reflect something, language surveys are useful, | > and appreciate that you want to run a useful survey, and certainly | > want to encourage and help you in making it as broad and useful as | > possible. That said, I don't know if slapping a "haskell.org" label on | > the survey will help manage the biggest drivers of selection bias -- | > which is not only about who chooses to respond, but about who is | > reached through what mechanisms. (I don't know the relative importance | > of response-bias vs. outreach-bias in general, and would be curious if | > somebody has some good research on that to point to). I honestly don't | > know if we have enough channels _in general_ to do a good survey, no | > matter who runs it or how at all! Regardless of the decision we come | > to, here are a few of my personal thoughts on the questions you have | > thus far, and what could be added: | > | > 1) A question "how did you hear about this survey" -- this could at | > least help to disentangle outreach-bias, or notice it, depending on if | > it induces any correlations. | > | > 2) A question on how long after a new GHC release users upgrade -- | > both personally, and at work. | > | > 3) Distinguishing between personal and work build-systems in the | > relevant question. | > | > 4) I think the sorts of questions that make sense to ask in this early | > part can resemble those in the first part of the Go survey: | > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.go | lang.org%2Fsurvey2017- | results&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2 | 008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367516175958 | 02229&sdata=2wB5Ph5%2Be6wZm0CWP7Yzx%2Fxe4dOlKHqNPKZReiJmE50%3D&r | eserved=0 (I especially like the | > questions about the area of development and server vs cli apps vs | > libraries). I also like their questions about what environments teams | > deploy programs to. It would also be worth asking if the apps | > developed are customer-facing or internal. | > | > 5) I think an interesting question would be what preferred js | > solution, if any, teams adopt -- i.e. ghcjs, typescript, purescript, | > raw js, etc. | > | > 6) for the "why did you stop" question, there are a good range of | > potential multi-choice answers that can be drawn from with the rust | > user survey: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.ru | st-lang.org%2F2017%2F09%2F05%2FRust-2017-Survey- | Results.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e42 | 0bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161 | 7595802229&sdata=MpnYeOui%2FfTPfpYRLlzzpStJHqYWJ4ENZd77qdrQ1BY%3D&am | p;reserved=0 | > | > Cheers, | > Gershom | > | > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM Taylor Fausak | wrote: | > > | > > I'm not entirely sure what official support would look like. A few | things come to mind: | > > | > > 1. Simply putting "official" somewhere in the title, such as: | Official 2018 state of Haskell survey. | > > | > > 2. Putting something about Haskell.org in the description of the | survey, such as: Sponsored by Haskell.org. | > > | > > 3. Announcing the survey through channels that I may not be aware | of. Or helping me announce the survey through various channels (mailing | lists, Reddit, and so on) by mentioning Haskell.org. | > > | > > I'm sure there are more ways that I'm not thinking of. | > > | > > Perhaps it would be better to state my goal and see what, if | anything, can be to achieve that goal? My goal is for this survey to be | *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the community to broadly | accept it results. In particular I would like to avoid reactions like | these to the recent FP Complete survey: | > > | > > > I browse r/haskell all the time and follow FPco on Twitter, and I | wasn't aware of this survey. [1] | > > | > > > It should not be surprising to think that fp complete has much | better outreach to Stackage users than to non Stackage users. [2] | > > | > > > Any survey hosted by FPComplete is biased towards users of stack, | for reasons that should be self evident. [3] | > > | > > Similar sentiments have been expressed about last year's Haskell | Weekly survey: | > > | > > > Haskell Weekly's reputation is tainted as it appears to be seen as | partisan (and I tend to agree). [4] | > > | > > > one of those surveys is from FP Complete and one of them is from | someone who I would consider very partisan in these kind of discussions. | [5] | > > | > > > For the love of god stop posting those surveys. They're not | convincing and obviously flawed. [6] | > > | > > I don't expect to be able to make everyone happy, but I think that | presenting this year's survey as sponsored by both Haskell Weekly and | Haskell.org would go a long way toward making it acceptable to a broad | range of the Haskell community. | > > | > > I hope that helps! | > > | > > [1]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | Fe7gplya%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | 595802229&sdata=X518Wt%2BsB5yepxQO7iKxYzbcOBqNTwH4QvesKNVccBg%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > > [2]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8tc8pr%2Ffp_complete_launches_new_bloc | kchain_auditing%2Fe188ftv%2F%3Fcontext%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40 | microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 | d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595802229&sdata=4oPTVet8hrgE2lTzjt%2B | 02f13o%2Fq%2BOrnGoITlsBsdKgw%3D&reserved=0 | > > [3]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | Fe7gpfwe%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | 595802229&sdata=9L8ztYN3kOArpdAhOiydFI6gfuz8Evu5%2FmtHZ5j3vyY%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > > [4]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | Fe7ka8xn%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | 595802229&sdata=tpyLQ%2BA3Lj4GLfxjMUgglfRyl46jH6go1ZE3OhVLwLo%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > > [5]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8tc8pr%2Ffp_complete_launches_new_bloc | kchain_auditing%2Fe187pzq%2F%3Fcontext%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40 | microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 | d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=ZbjRYFCXl4rraHE%2Bno7 | kefm5N3%2FvtNpaI%2FXTz3N6i7w%3D&reserved=0 | > > [6]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8uw9hw%2Fpsa_cabal_breaks_with_yaml083 | 1_on_ghc_710_and%2Fe1lfzgr%2F%3Fcontext%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%4 | 0microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab | 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=oyy8raidob%2Bjf8Evw0 | Kb6aCul0knqYlOlxN8zLjzl3I%3D&reserved=0 | > > | > > | > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote: | > > | > > Hi Taylor, | > > | > > What does official support look like? I don't think there's anything | above and beyond what you're already doing. | > > | > > Thanks, Neil | > > | > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 3:49 pm, Taylor Fausak | wrote: | > > | > > (I have CCed because the haskell-community | mailing list seems relatively quiet and I want to make sure this is | seen.) | > > | > > Hello! My name is Taylor Fausak. I run the Haskell Weekly | newsletter. Last year I published a survey [1] for the Haskell | community. I collected and reported [2] on about 1,335 responses. I plan | on publishing another survey this year on the same date, November 1st. I | am developing it in the open again [3] and would love to hear from any | interested parties. Please let me know if you have any ideas about the | survey! | > > | > > This year I am interested in making the survey official by seeking | support from Haskell.org. Is such a thing possible and desirable? | > > | > > Thanks for your consideration! I hope to hear from you soon. | > > | > > [1]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhaskell | weekly.news%2Fsurveys%2F2017.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft | .com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db | 47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=0eGdCpPFIyxgNp5YNXvP6TZQMAvTJ% | 2BIck4UvSV7wWSU%3D&reserved=0 | > > [2]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaylor. | fausak.me%2F2017%2F11%2F15%2F2017-state-of-haskell-survey- | results%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420b | bf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367516175 | 95812242&sdata=QZjow3PKFG7BitCQCdTe7xW%2BXl4YA4ICVmA%2B87GXOCs%3D&am | p;reserved=0 | > > [3]: | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fhaskellweekly%2Fhaskellweekly.github.io%2Fissues%2F206&data=02 | %7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f | 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=v2b | W4fjDtWrJnKACnQaoLRoaYw0kADGucwasn2X0wtI%3D&reserved=0 | > > _______________________________________________ | > > Haskell-community mailing list | > > Haskell-community@haskell.org | > > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | mp;reserved=0 | > > | > > | > > _______________________________________________ | > > Haskell-community mailing list | > > Haskell-community@haskell.org | > > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | mp;reserved=0 | _______________________________________________ | Haskell-community mailing list | Haskell-community@haskell.org | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | mp;reserved=0

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 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@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

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 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 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 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@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

-- Jasper

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 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 mailto:taylor@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 mailto:m@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 mailto:haskell-community@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@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-community@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@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community -- Jasper

🎉 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 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 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 mailto:taylor@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 mailto:m@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 mailto:haskell-community@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@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-community@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@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community -- Jasper

Hello Taylor, On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 02:42:16PM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote:

Please > take a look at the survey to make sure that you're happy with it! Let me know if there are any questions that you would like to be added, removed, or changed. You can view the survey here: https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf You can deliver feedback to me either in this thread or on GitHub: https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206

Suggestions: - state under which specific one of the "permissive license"s the results will be available; - if it not mission critical, axe the last question.

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions!

- I plan on releasing the results under the ODbL 1.0 license. I'll be sure to update the survey to say that. You can read more about the license here: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/

Excellent choice!

Thanks for the feedback! - I would like to separate the survey into sections, but Airtable does not provide that functionality. I have sent a message to their support asking if I’m just missing it. Worst case scenario I can put some bogus questions in to act as dividers. I’ve put an example of such a divider question at the top of the survey. - The “Add an option” questions allow you to select multiple answers rather than choosing a single one. I’ve updated the questions to make that clearer by adding this help text: “Select all that apply." - I’ve added a followup question to the one about GHC’s new release schedule: "Why do you feel the way that you do about the new GHC release schedule?” I’m open to better wording there. - I have added follow up questions of the form “What would you change about X?” where X is the language, compiler, build tool, or package repository. Hopefully that will provide meaningful guidance about how to improve those things without overwhelming the user with questions. - For information about using Haskell at work, I think that is covered by existing questions. Last year’s survey asked if people used Haskell at work, and this year’s added some followup questions to that. Company size is covered by the demographic questions at the end. The only missing piece is asking about the size of the team of Haskell programmers. Is that worth asking about separately? - I have removed “Official” from the title of the survey. - I changed the Haskell Prime question to ask about importance rather than interest: “How important do you feel it would be to have a new version of the Haskell standard?” It uses the answer scale from here: https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales - I split academic and commercial conferences in the question about interacting with the Haskell community. - For the question about which type of Haskell software is developed at the respondents company, would it suffice to ask if the software is used internally by other employees and/or externally by customers? Another question already covers the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). - I like the idea of drilling down into performance bottlenecks. How do you feel about phrasing it like this: “Which performance bottlenecks does your Haskell software typically hit?” With answer choices: CPU, RAM, disk, network, other, none.(I’m not sure what you mean by “bound by serialization.” Can you expand on that?) - I think the way that the software runs is covered by another question about the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). Is it worth it to have a separate question? I hope that addresses all the feedback so far. If not, please let me know! Thanks again!

On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Gershom B wrote:

HI Taylor.

A few thoughts. First, even with joint sponsorship, I don't think saying "Official" in the name of the survey is a good idea. Everything is "official" from whatever group supports it, but that seems besides the point. I think that the intended meaning here is a bit slippery since it can be interpreted as "approved by some body" but is often used to mean "authoritative" and as we've discussed, you can't really be authoritative with things like this, just "better". Ok, that said, on to some other points:

"Are you interested in a new version of the Haskell standard?"

Interested is a very vague thing to ask. I'd want something more specific like "how important do you feel it would be to have a new version..."

On "Where do you interact with the Haskell community?" I think that we should distinguish between "conferences (academic)" and "conferences (commercial)" because ICFP and HaskellX, for example, are very different sorts of things.

I'd also like a question, as I mentioned earlier, like "What sort of Haskell software is developed at your company" with options for "in-house" "binaries deployed to customers" and "webapps used by customers" among maybe other options. Also perhaps "is the software you work on A) bound by memory B) bound by processor utilization C) bound by wire/disk speed D) bound by serialization E) not running against any performance limits at this time" and additionally is the software intended A) for continuous (server) operation or B) batched operation or C) interactive user-driven operation.

Cheers, Gershom On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM Francesco Ariis wrote:

...

Hello Taylor,

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 02:42:16PM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote:

...

Please > take a look at the survey to make sure that you're happy with it! Let me know if there are any questions that you would like to be added, removed, or changed. You can view the survey here: https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf You can deliver feedback to me either in this thread or on GitHub: https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206

Suggestions: - state under which specific one of the "permissive license"s the results will be available; - if it not mission critical, axe the last question.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

The survey is now open! You can read the announcement post here: http://taylor.fausak.me/2018/11/01/2018-state-of-haskell-survey/ http://taylor.fausak.me/2018/11/01/2018-state-of-haskell-survey/ You can go directly to the survey here: https://bit.ly/haskell2018 https://bit.ly/haskell2018 Or, if you don’t like link shorteners, you can go here: https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf

On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Taylor Fausak wrote:

I received confirmation from Airtable that they do not support arbitrary markup in forms. So I put in separator questions between each of section.

At this point the survey is ready to publish. I recognize that there are many more questions that could be asked, but they’ll have to wait until next year. Thank you all for your feedback! I look forward to sharing the results with you in a couple weeks. In the meantime, if there’s anything I can do for you, please let me know.

...

On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Taylor Fausak mailto:taylor@fausak.me> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback!

- I would like to separate the survey into sections, but Airtable does not provide that functionality. I have sent a message to their support asking if I’m just missing it. Worst case scenario I can put some bogus questions in to act as dividers. I’ve put an example of such a divider question at the top of the survey.

- The “Add an option” questions allow you to select multiple answers rather than choosing a single one. I’ve updated the questions to make that clearer by adding this help text: “Select all that apply."

- I’ve added a followup question to the one about GHC’s new release schedule: "Why do you feel the way that you do about the new GHC release schedule?” I’m open to better wording there.

- I have added follow up questions of the form “What would you change about X?” where X is the language, compiler, build tool, or package repository. Hopefully that will provide meaningful guidance about how to improve those things without overwhelming the user with questions.

- For information about using Haskell at work, I think that is covered by existing questions. Last year’s survey asked if people used Haskell at work, and this year’s added some followup questions to that. Company size is covered by the demographic questions at the end. The only missing piece is asking about the size of the team of Haskell programmers. Is that worth asking about separately?

- I have removed “Official” from the title of the survey.

- I changed the Haskell Prime question to ask about importance rather than interest: “How important do you feel it would be to have a new version of the Haskell standard?” It uses the answer scale from here: https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales

- I split academic and commercial conferences in the question about interacting with the Haskell community.

- For the question about which type of Haskell software is developed at the respondents company, would it suffice to ask if the software is used internally by other employees and/or externally by customers? Another question already covers the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …).

- I like the idea of drilling down into performance bottlenecks. How do you feel about phrasing it like this: “Which performance bottlenecks does your Haskell software typically hit?” With answer choices: CPU, RAM, disk, network, other, none.(I’m not sure what you mean by “bound by serialization.” Can you expand on that?)

- I think the way that the software runs is covered by another question about the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). Is it worth it to have a separate question?

I hope that addresses all the feedback so far. If not, please let me know! Thanks again!

...

On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Gershom B mailto:gershomb@gmail.com> wrote:

HI Taylor.

A few thoughts. First, even with joint sponsorship, I don't think saying "Official" in the name of the survey is a good idea. Everything is "official" from whatever group supports it, but that seems besides the point. I think that the intended meaning here is a bit slippery since it can be interpreted as "approved by some body" but is often used to mean "authoritative" and as we've discussed, you can't really be authoritative with things like this, just "better". Ok, that said, on to some other points:

"Are you interested in a new version of the Haskell standard?"

Interested is a very vague thing to ask. I'd want something more specific like "how important do you feel it would be to have a new version..."

On "Where do you interact with the Haskell community?" I think that we should distinguish between "conferences (academic)" and "conferences (commercial)" because ICFP and HaskellX, for example, are very different sorts of things.

I'd also like a question, as I mentioned earlier, like "What sort of Haskell software is developed at your company" with options for "in-house" "binaries deployed to customers" and "webapps used by customers" among maybe other options. Also perhaps "is the software you work on A) bound by memory B) bound by processor utilization C) bound by wire/disk speed D) bound by serialization E) not running against any performance limits at this time" and additionally is the software intended A) for continuous (server) operation or B) batched operation or C) interactive user-driven operation.

Cheers, Gershom On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM Francesco Ariis mailto:fa-ml@ariis.it> wrote:

...

Hello Taylor,

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 02:42:16PM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote:

...

Please > take a look at the survey to make sure that you're happy with it! Let me know if there are any questions that you would like to be added, removed, or changed. You can view the survey here: https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf You can deliver feedback to me either in this thread or on GitHub: https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206 https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206

Suggestions: - state under which specific one of the "permissive license"s the results will be available; - if it not mission critical, axe the last question.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-community@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@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Taylor On the GHC side, as I say we are going to do a 1-question GHC survey shortly, so you don't need to bother about that one. (I think it'd be too buried as one question among many in your survey.) | - Reaction to the new pace of GHC releases That would be interesting, yes. It would be interesting to know people's perceptions of the (relatively new) GHC Proposals process. Do they even know about it? Do they follow what is going on? Does the greater transparency and opportunity to contribute makes them feel a greater sense of ownership? I also wonder if they feel included or excluded in our shared enterprise of making GHC a better tool. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Taylor Fausak | Sent: 16 October 2018 00:43 | To: Simon Peyton Jones ; Gershom B | ; Mathieu Boespflug ; Ben Gamari | | Cc: haskell-community@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [Haskell-community] 2018 state of Haskell survey | | Thanks for the kind words, Simon! They mean a lot :) | | I would be happy to include questions that would benefit the GHC team, | including: | | - Simon's question | - Reaction to the new pace of GHC releases | - Target of the GHC team's focus: performance, features, ergonomics, etc. | - Average wait time before upgrading GHC | | Are there any other questions the GHC team would be interested in asking? | Perhaps I should ask on a different mailing list. | | In response to Gershom's comments: | | 1. Asking how people heard about the survey is a great idea. Not only would | it let me identify the best ways to reach people, it could also be useful | in dealing with selection bias. | | 2. Addressed above. | | 3. In general, distinguishing between work and home is something I would | love to do for basically every question. Unfortunately I think that would | balloon the size of the survey. Maybe identifying a few key questions for | the work/home split would be the best way to go? Build systems, as you | identified, are certainly one of those key questions. Maybe GHC versions | used is another? | | 4. I also like Go's survey and have been trying to crib as much as I can | from it. Questions worth asking: | - Area of development (web, embedded, etc.) | - Type of development (server, CLI, desktop, library, etc.) | - Deploy environments / infrastructure | - Internal versus external | | 5. Asking about JS solutions for web developers is a great idea! I like the | choices you've given, and there are a whole slew of JS libraries to include | as well, such as React or Vue. | | 6. Giving multiple choice answers to the "why did you stop" question (and, | in fact, as many questions as possible) is awesome and would make the | results much easier to digest. It also makes things easier to compare | across time, which could be used to gauge the effectiveness of various | endeavors. | | Thank you all for your feedback so far! I am very excited about this year's | survey. I want to include as many useful questions as I can without | overwhelming respondents. As I continue to develop the survey, I constantly | ask myself this question: "How would I act on responses to this question?" | For example, last year's survey asked if people had contributed to an open | source Haskell project. I suspect I will exclude that question because it's | not really actionable. | | With regards to Haskell.org sponsorship, I still think that throwing around | the words "official" and "Haskell.org" would do a lot in terms of | credibility. 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. And if people have problems with the survey, I want them to feel | comfortable trying to fix those problems, even if they're not on my "side". | | On Mon, Oct 15, 2018, at 3:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: | > The GHC team (coincidentally) is cooking up a very short survey | > that is intended to help guide our strategic priorities. | > | > There is only one substantial question: | > | > Imagine that you had one developer working on GHC for | > six months full-time, that you were paying for yourself. | > What would you ask that person to do? Keep in mind that | > the project should be within GHC itself and tractable | > in a six-month time-frame. | > | > It has a rather different purpose to Taylor's proposed survey | > and FP Complete's, because it is not comprehensive, but instead | > focuses on a single question about a single artefact. | > | > Returning to Taylor's question list, yes, it would be interesting to | > know whether the increased release tempo is perceived as helpful or | > unhelpful. (It's helpful for the development /process/ because it makes | > reduces the pressure to squeeze "just one more thing" into a release: | > the next bus will be along in only 6 months.) | > | > Incidentally, I for one think that it's a Good Thing that you included | > FP Complete's survey in the HWN, Taylor. First, I think it's a | > substantial and interesting piece of work -- and /any/ survey is | > vulnerable to response bias. Second, I don’t think anyone should expect | > you as HWN editor to play a role as community censor. Third, | > deliberately excluding it would in itself be a divisive act in a | > community that needs less division and more love. | > | > You do a fantastic job with HWN. Please keep doing it! | > | > Thanks | > | > Simon | > | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: Haskell-community On | > | Behalf Of Gershom B | > | Sent: 15 October 2018 01:56 | > | To: taylor@fausak.me; Mathieu Boespflug ; Ben Gamari | > | | > | Cc: haskell-community@haskell.org | > | Subject: Re: [Haskell-community] 2018 state of Haskell survey | > | | > | (cc mathieu boespflug, ben gamari) | > | | > | One more thought: | > | | > | mathieu, ben -- do you think you would be interested in any questions | > | on the frequency of ghc releases -- if people appreciate more | > | frequent, smaller releases, or not, etc? | > | | > | I wonder if there are any other questions as well about core libraries | > | vs. performance vs. "big features" (like type system things) vs. small | > | ergonomic features etc. that the core ghc team might be interested in | > | sounding out people on, bearing in mind the necessary limitations of | > | survey derived data. | > | | > | --g | > | On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 8:36 PM Gershom B wrote: | > | > | > | > Hi Taylor. | > | > | > | > We're discussing this in the committee. I agree that to the extent | > | > they can accurately reflect something, language surveys are useful, | > | > and appreciate that you want to run a useful survey, and certainly | > | > want to encourage and help you in making it as broad and useful as | > | > possible. That said, I don't know if slapping a "haskell.org" label | on | > | > the survey will help manage the biggest drivers of selection bias -- | > | > which is not only about who chooses to respond, but about who is | > | > reached through what mechanisms. (I don't know the relative | importance | > | > of response-bias vs. outreach-bias in general, and would be curious | if | > | > somebody has some good research on that to point to). I honestly | don't | > | > know if we have enough channels _in general_ to do a good survey, no | > | > matter who runs it or how at all! Regardless of the decision we come | > | > to, here are a few of my personal thoughts on the questions you have | > | > thus far, and what could be added: | > | > | > | > 1) A question "how did you hear about this survey" -- this could at | > | > least help to disentangle outreach-bias, or notice it, depending on | if | > | > it induces any correlations. | > | > | > | > 2) A question on how long after a new GHC release users upgrade -- | > | > both personally, and at work. | > | > | > | > 3) Distinguishing between personal and work build-systems in the | > | > relevant question. | > | > | > | > 4) I think the sorts of questions that make sense to ask in this | early | > | > part can resemble those in the first part of the Go survey: | > | > | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.go | > | lang.org%2Fsurvey2017- | > | | results&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2 | > | | 008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367516175958 | > | | 02229&sdata=2wB5Ph5%2Be6wZm0CWP7Yzx%2Fxe4dOlKHqNPKZReiJmE50%3D&r | > | eserved=0 (I especially like the | > | > questions about the area of development and server vs cli apps vs | > | > libraries). I also like their questions about what environments teams | > | > deploy programs to. It would also be worth asking if the apps | > | > developed are customer-facing or internal. | > | > | > | > 5) I think an interesting question would be what preferred js | > | > solution, if any, teams adopt -- i.e. ghcjs, typescript, purescript, | > | > raw js, etc. | > | > | > | > 6) for the "why did you stop" question, there are a good range of | > | > potential multi-choice answers that can be drawn from with the rust | > | > user survey: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.ru | > | st-lang.org%2F2017%2F09%2F05%2FRust-2017-Survey- | > | | Results.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e42 | > | | 0bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161 | > | | 7595802229&sdata=MpnYeOui%2FfTPfpYRLlzzpStJHqYWJ4ENZd77qdrQ1BY%3D&am | > | p;reserved=0 | > | > | > | > Cheers, | > | > Gershom | > | > | > | > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM Taylor Fausak | > | wrote: | > | > > | > | > > I'm not entirely sure what official support would look like. A few | > | things come to mind: | > | > > | > | > > 1. Simply putting "official" somewhere in the title, such as: | > | Official 2018 state of Haskell survey. | > | > > | > | > > 2. Putting something about Haskell.org in the description of the | > | survey, such as: Sponsored by Haskell.org. | > | > > | > | > > 3. Announcing the survey through channels that I may not be aware | > | of. Or helping me announce the survey through various channels (mailing | > | lists, Reddit, and so on) by mentioning Haskell.org. | > | > > | > | > > I'm sure there are more ways that I'm not thinking of. | > | > > | > | > > Perhaps it would be better to state my goal and see what, if | > | anything, can be to achieve that goal? My goal is for this survey to be | > | *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the community to broadly | > | accept it results. In particular I would like to avoid reactions like | > | these to the recent FP Complete survey: | > | > > | > | > > > I browse r/haskell all the time and follow FPco on Twitter, and I | > | wasn't aware of this survey. [1] | > | > > | > | > > > It should not be surprising to think that fp complete has much | > | better outreach to Stackage users than to non Stackage users. [2] | > | > > | > | > > > Any survey hosted by FPComplete is biased towards users of stack, | > | for reasons that should be self evident. [3] | > | > > | > | > > Similar sentiments have been expressed about last year's Haskell | > | Weekly survey: | > | > > | > | > > > Haskell Weekly's reputation is tainted as it appears to be seen | as | > | partisan (and I tend to agree). [4] | > | > > | > | > > > one of those surveys is from FP Complete and one of them is from | > | someone who I would consider very partisan in these kind of | discussions. | > | [5] | > | > > | > | > > > For the love of god stop posting those surveys. They're not | > | convincing and obviously flawed. [6] | > | > > | > | > > I don't expect to be able to make everyone happy, but I think that | > | presenting this year's survey as sponsored by both Haskell Weekly and | > | Haskell.org would go a long way toward making it acceptable to a broad | > | range of the Haskell community. | > | > > | > | > > I hope that helps! | > | > > | > | > > [1]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | > | | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | > | | Fe7gplya%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | > | | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | > | | 595802229&sdata=X518Wt%2BsB5yepxQO7iKxYzbcOBqNTwH4QvesKNVccBg%3D& | > | ;reserved=0 | > | > > [2]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | > | | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8tc8pr%2Ffp_complete_launches_new_bloc | > | | kchain_auditing%2Fe188ftv%2F%3Fcontext%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40 | > | | microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 | > | | d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595802229&sdata=4oPTVet8hrgE2lTzjt%2B | > | 02f13o%2Fq%2BOrnGoITlsBsdKgw%3D&reserved=0 | > | > > [3]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | > | | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | > | | Fe7gpfwe%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | > | | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | > | | 595802229&sdata=9L8ztYN3kOArpdAhOiydFI6gfuz8Evu5%2FmtHZ5j3vyY%3D& | > | ;reserved=0 | > | > > [4]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | > | | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F9mm05d%2F2018_haskell_survey_results%2 | > | | Fe7ka8xn%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420 | > | | bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617 | > | | 595802229&sdata=tpyLQ%2BA3Lj4GLfxjMUgglfRyl46jH6go1ZE3OhVLwLo%3D& | > | ;reserved=0 | > | > > [5]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | > | | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8tc8pr%2Ffp_complete_launches_new_bloc | > | | kchain_auditing%2Fe187pzq%2F%3Fcontext%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40 | > | | microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 | > | | d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=ZbjRYFCXl4rraHE%2Bno7 | > | kefm5N3%2FvtNpaI%2FXTz3N6i7w%3D&reserved=0 | > | > > [6]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnp.redd | > | | it.com%2Fr%2Fhaskell%2Fcomments%2F8uw9hw%2Fpsa_cabal_breaks_with_yaml083 | > | | 1_on_ghc_710_and%2Fe1lfzgr%2F%3Fcontext%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%4 | > | | 0microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab | > | | 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=oyy8raidob%2Bjf8Evw0 | > | Kb6aCul0knqYlOlxN8zLjzl3I%3D&reserved=0 | > | > > | > | > > | > | > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote: | > | > > | > | > > Hi Taylor, | > | > > | > | > > What does official support look like? I don't think there's | anything | > | above and beyond what you're already doing. | > | > > | > | > > Thanks, Neil | > | > > | > | > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 3:49 pm, Taylor Fausak | > | wrote: | > | > > | > | > > (I have CCed because the haskell-community | > | mailing list seems relatively quiet and I want to make sure this is | > | seen.) | > | > > | > | > > Hello! My name is Taylor Fausak. I run the Haskell Weekly | > | newsletter. Last year I published a survey [1] for the Haskell | > | community. I collected and reported [2] on about 1,335 responses. I | plan | > | on publishing another survey this year on the same date, November 1st. | I | > | am developing it in the open again [3] and would love to hear from any | > | interested parties. Please let me know if you have any ideas about the | > | survey! | > | > > | > | > > This year I am interested in making the survey official by seeking | > | support from Haskell.org. Is such a thing possible and desirable? | > | > > | > | > > Thanks for your consideration! I hope to hear from you soon. | > | > > | > | > > [1]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhaskell | > | | weekly.news%2Fsurveys%2F2017.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft | > | | .com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db | > | | 47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=0eGdCpPFIyxgNp5YNXvP6TZQMAvTJ% | > | 2BIck4UvSV7wWSU%3D&reserved=0 | > | > > [2]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaylor. | > | fausak.me%2F2017%2F11%2F15%2F2017-state-of-haskell-survey- | > | | results%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420b | > | | bf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367516175 | > | | 95812242&sdata=QZjow3PKFG7BitCQCdTe7xW%2BXl4YA4ICVmA%2B87GXOCs%3D&am | > | p;reserved=0 | > | > > [3]: | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | > | | com%2Fhaskellweekly%2Fhaskellweekly.github.io%2Fissues%2F206&data=02 | > | | %7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bbf2008d63238f7c4%7C72f | > | | 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636751617595812242&sdata=v2b | > | W4fjDtWrJnKACnQaoLRoaYw0kADGucwasn2X0wtI%3D&reserved=0 | > | > > _______________________________________________ | > | > > Haskell-community mailing list | > | > > Haskell-community@haskell.org | > | > > | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | > | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | > | | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | > | | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | > | | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | > | mp;reserved=0 | > | > > | > | > > | > | > > _______________________________________________ | > | > > Haskell-community mailing list | > | > > Haskell-community@haskell.org | > | > > | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | > | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | > | | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | > | | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | > | | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | > | mp;reserved=0 | > | _______________________________________________ | > | Haskell-community mailing list | > | Haskell-community@haskell.org | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | > | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhaskell- | > | | community&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C9fbbfac1fd9e420bb | > | | f2008d63238f7c4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63675161759 | > | | 5812242&sdata=2SB8gyaEQI2zxvUE%2FEdw%2B%2B2OLcJW10hpH8A1McoP0MY%3D&a | > | mp;reserved=0