SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras - Page 25 - maemo.org

Active Topics

The N900 is now 15 years old! (8)
to Nokia N900 by whayong - 10 hrs, 57 mins ago
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 7 hrs ago
more...

Page 25 of 31

Thread Tools

fatalsaint	2010-02-19 , 17:52
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#241

Originally Posted by ewan

I think what I, at least would have wanted to see is not so much a public apology as any kind of punishment, but simply a credible expression that the developer realised that whet they'd done was wrong, and an acceptance that it should not be done again. Without that I'd find it very difficult to trust that they wouldn't do the same, or similar, again were it to appear to be in their interests.

Had this been handled privately, as I believe it should have been, that would simply have been needed be between the Dev and the Extras mods.

It doesn't require public humiliation.

__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!

Quote & Reply |

The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post:
aMeeGo, b-man, codeMonkey, dread123, floffe, Freemantle, RevdKathy, sjgadsby, Texrat, twaelti

	Texrat	2010-02-19 , 17:53
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#242

Originally Posted by ewan

I think what I, at least would have wanted to see is not so much a public apology as any kind of punishment, but simply a credible expression that the developer realised that whet they'd done was wrong, and an acceptance that it should not be done again. Without that I'd find it very difficult to trust that they wouldn't do the same, or similar, again were it to appear to be in their interests.

Agreed, but by the same token: this is often difficult if not impossible to extract when the offender is encircled by an enraged mob with virtual torches and pitchforks. That tends to put people (any of us) on the defensive. Not productive at all.

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
codeMonkey, fatalsaint, thecursedfly

	ewan	2010-02-19 , 17:54
	Posts: 445 \| Thanked: 572 times \| Joined on Oct 2009 @ Oxford	#243

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

Private Channels FTW and all that..

The idea of this sort of thing being dealt with in private makes me a little queasy; I'm not sure how you avoid things getting ugly (though I suspect that having a clear procedure to follow would actually help), but there does need to be transparency.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ewan For This Useful Post:
lemmyslender, lma

	Texrat	2010-02-19 , 17:56
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#244

Originally Posted by ewan

The idea of this sort of thing being dealt with in private makes be a little queasy; I'm not sure how you avoid things getting ugly (though I suspect that having a clear procedure to follow would actually help), but there does need to be transparency.

I think it should and could have been a mix: initially approach the developer in private, then once understanding (or an impasse) has been reached, bring the issue into the open.

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
ewan, floffe, twaelti

fatalsaint	2010-02-19 , 17:58
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#245

Originally Posted by ewan

The idea of this sort of thing being dealt with in private makes be a little queasy; I'm not sure how you avoid things getting ugly (though I suspect that having a clear procedure to follow would actually help), but there does need to be transparency.

I've always been a proponent of the old adage:

Praise in public, reprimand in private.

Even in the military.. I used to abhor what they called "Open Mast".

Let's line up the entire command to watch the CO scream at someone. I'm sorry.. we're not 10 anymore. We don't need to be "scared" into doing the "right" thing.

At least.. most of us shouldn't have to be.

As far as transparency.. to an extent. That's why I said that I wouldn't have been against X-Fade or whoever making an announcement and having it locked simply saying:

Applications from <insert dev name here> have been removed from Extras. A bug was found that permitted premature apps to get promoted before their time.

The Dev has been contacted and will be able to re-submit these in the near future.

Or something similar. That's it.... the users can see why their apps magically vanished from HAM - and the dev gets dealt with on the side.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post:
aMeeGo, ewan, fgs, floffe, inidrog, RevdKathy, sjgadsby, Texrat

	ewan	2010-02-19 , 18:06
	Posts: 445 \| Thanked: 572 times \| Joined on Oct 2009 @ Oxford	#246

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

We don't need to be "scared" into doing the "right" thing.

At least.. most of us shouldn't have to be.

The thing is, most of us don't. I wouldn't expect mass public shamings becoming a routine feature of the community.

Or something similar. That's it.... the users can see why their apps magically vanished from HAM - and the dev gets dealt with on the side.

I think that statement is too incomplete - it makes it sound like an accident, which it wasn't. I do think it's important to have the facts on the record so that people can make up their own minds about them. A number of people have said that they'd be personally unwilling to trust someone that had done this sort of thing again, even if the project as a whole was prepared to give second chances. I think they should have the facts necessary to be able to make that sort of decision.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ewan For This Useful Post:
fgs, lemmyslender, sjgadsby

	Texrat	2010-02-19 , 18:08
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#247

Originally Posted by ewan

I think they should have the facts necessary to be able to make that sort of decision.

Agreed. I don't see anyone arguing against that.

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Quote & Reply |

fatalsaint	2010-02-19 , 18:09
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#248

A further clarification:

If it's determined however that the dev was being intentionally malicious... ala sticking the infamous RM joke into postrm.. thereby laughing at anyone that decides they don't like their app.. Or if someone scans source code of an app in Extras and see's code that is capturing and sending passwords, for example.. and the Dev rushed them to Extras due to a different exploit (we're moving forward, remember?)

That would require immediate banning, notice to the Dev their privs are revoked.. and a more detailed announcement here at what exactly the app did - and if anyone has or ever had installed it they likely need to either:
A) modify their postrm real quick
or B) change all their passwords

Etc. Those affect the users directly in a malicious and harmful way.. and people should be warned.

A lot of a punishment has to do with the intention of the dev. If they circumvented some rules out of laziness or self-gain that's one thing. If they did it to create a mass-virus.. that's different.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post:
attila77, Texrat

fatalsaint	2010-02-19 , 18:11
Posts: 3,428 \| Thanked: 2,856 times \| Joined on Jul 2008	#249

Originally Posted by ewan

A number of people have said that they'd be personally unwilling to trust someone that had done this sort of thing again, even if the project as a whole was prepared to give second chances. I think they should have the facts necessary to be able to make that sort of decision.

I did say "or similar"

. If it's decided that more detail is needed for the announcement that's fine.

What we need at this point though, is a committee of some sorts that gather all of these ideas together - and make a wiki or rule article or something that clearly defines:

If a bug in extras is found, report it <here>, if someone notices an App that does not belong in Extras.. report that <here>..

And a clear indication of punishment with examples of the crime it applies to (*not* real life examples.. please god don't somebody go stick SIO2 into a wiki article..).

Making stuff up as we go isn't going to work.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post:
RevdKathy, Texrat

	Texrat	2010-02-19 , 18:12
	Posts: 11,700 \| Thanked: 10,045 times \| Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA	#250

I love it when a noisy thread matures and turns productive.

__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net