[Development] The place of QML

Samuel Rødal samuel.rodal at nokia.com
Wed May 16 12:38:59 CEST 2012

On 05/16/2012 11:14 AM, ext André Somers wrote:
> Op 16-5-2012 1:31, André Pönitz schreef:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:13:19AM -0700, BRM wrote:
>>>> From: Donald Carr<sirspudd at gmail.com>
>>>> [...]  This is out of a sample set of 110 people, which is
>>>> infinitesimally small in comparison to the Qt user base. It would
>>>> be a stretch to call this a statistically significant poll, [...]
>>> [...] But the sample sizes are no better than yours - 114/139/19
>>> respectively for each poll.  Again, statically insignificant.
>> I wonder how the two of you came to the conclusion of statistical
>> insignificance, and how you explain the apparent discrepancy of this
>> result with, say, the section titled "Estimating proportions and means"
>> on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination. [1]
>> I trust the audience would be delighted if you gave some insight
>> into the calculation.
>> Andre'
>> [1] That link is admittedly a random pick, but Wikipedia seems to
>> be an acceptable replacement for lecture notes nowadays.
> If we're throwing wikipedia links back and forth anyway, also consult 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29#Errors_in_sample_surveys 
> please. I agree with you that perhaps the sample _size_ is not an issue, 
> but the sample suffers from *many* of the errors mentioned on the URL 
> above, including selection bias, undercoverage and measurement error. 
> Doing good surveys is just plain hard to do, and the polls discussed so 
> far certainly don't qualify as "good" or even "acceptable". There are 
> people getting a PhD on this kind of thing...
> However, I think the whole point is moot. I don't think the people who 
> get to decide - that is, those doing or funding the actual work - care 
> much about any such statistics, no matter if they are sound or not. And 
> more generally: facts don't seem to matter much in this discussion 
> either for some participants, or at least not those facts that tell a 
> different story than they want to hear.
> André

It's worth noting that the Qt project is designed to be a meritocracy,
not a democracy.


More information about the Development mailing list