Re^2: swissprot assignment

[Argel]

Looking at this thread, the most enlightening post is that the OP is most likely referencing interview question. Is this thread really worth keeping for that, especially given the trolling near the top? It's good of you to think of the hypothetical prof, but what's best for The Monastery should come first, and I am not seeing the benefit. But good question!!

[tye]

Is this thread really worth keeping

That's the wrong question. A thread doesn't need to justify its worth in being kept. We should not remove a node merely because a few people fail to see any significant value in it. Not only is that just putting the onus on the wrong side of the equation for philosophical reasons, it also just leads to bad decision making. When that has happened in the past, there usually appear several people who saw the value and the node got restored.

Somebody has to justify the (at least somewhat compelling) reason for its removal.

Which is why considering a node with the reason of just "reap" is against documented practices for the use of "consideration".

[Argel]

Normally I would agree with you, but for edge cases like this I find it far more interesting (and valid) to let the thread stand or fall on its merits or lack thereof.

[tye]

I guess you haven't read or don't remember or just don't agree with the justifications I've given around consideration.

I find it misguided to put little effort into the evaluation of whether a node should be reaped or not and then providing the careful justification while expecting that the people who vote on the consideration will be the ones who put the effort into careful evaluation.

When presented with a consideration to vote on, it is my experience that the person voting is likely to put less effort into analysis.

Take the root of this very thread. As I wrote my prior reply, I voted "keep" on the root node and found that everybody to that point had voted "reap", as instructed to do by your "consideration" (that lacked any justification). It was more than half way to being reaped.

Looking just now, twice as many have since voted, 100% of which were for "keep".

So, the number of people who managed to consider your proposal and decide to go against it was exactly one: me. The number of people who considered my reply and decided to go against it: zero.

The responsibility to make a determination that action is required must fall upon the person proposing the action.

but for edge cases like this

If you consider it an edge case, then you don't feel strongly that it should be reaped, therefore you should not have requested that it be reaped. If nobody finds it clear that it really should be reaped, then it shouldn't be reaped.

If you request that it be reaped, then (experience shows that) it will usually not be hard to find 5 people who will manage to go along with your request. And experience confirms that for this thread. That nearly happened here. This despite there being several people who feel that the thread should not be reaped, and (now) twice as many voting "keep" as "reap".

No trial balloons! Only consider a node if you feel strongly that your proposed action needs to be done.

[Jenda]

I do believe keeping trail of a rather badly executed attempt to cheat is best for The Monastery. I do hope the attempt is found by the interviewer, the culprit is treated accordingly and either eventually gets removed from the pool of (Perl) developers or is forced to learn what he or she is claiming he/she already knows. And it's even possible that a member of Monastery that did not lie in the CV as much as faten daim will get a chance at the interview and get the job instead.