Skip to content
Prev 3924 / 12125 Next

[R-pkg-devel] CRAN student assistants

I can't speak for Hadley, but my read of his email was that CRAN has
appointed new staff and while extra staff are clearly justified, it
was unclear how they were appointed and whether they had equal
seniority and authority as existing members. Indeed, the fact they use
titles which are clearly junior would suggest that they may not be.
His citation of the initially rejected packages was, from my read, not
intended to obtain special treatment for those packages, but simply to
make transparent his perception.

His request for additional details about the new appointments did not
strike me as too concerning either. My take was that he was not
wanting to find out more about the individuals themselves but to
better understand the process by which the CRAN team is formed. I
would echo his desire to better understand the process. CRAN (as
opposed to an arbitrary CRAN-like repository) is, as you and Hadley
agree, widely well-regarded. But outsiders -- for example systems
administrators of enterprise networks who are new to R -- may ask R
users to conduct due diligence on CRAN before whitelisting packages.
Some basic knowledge about the vetting and appointment of the
gatekeepers may be crucial in these matters. Naturally, CRAN as a free
service has no obligation at all to disclose such information nor to
assist with others' navigation of IT systems. But one is entitled to
ask.

Of course, Hadley could find all this out for himself, but this would
not be helpful to me and other outsiders. And I think this is what
motivated him to post publicly.

CRAN administration is a highly specialized job involving judgement
and experience; and so a criticism over the handling of one or two
submissions by obviously new appointees is hardly a reflection of the
individuals' general competence. If Uwe can make such mistakes, I
hardly think an error or two by someone else is that damning!
On 15/05/2019, Joris Meys <Joris.Meys at ugent.be> wrote: