3 ms·

Example: A high application fee is a barrier. Lowering it does not lower the bar.

by finnh 8y ago

johnisgood 8y ago
Definition: > To lower the standards of quality that are expected of or required for something "or required for something". I think it pretty much fits according to the definition, but it is usually used in terms of abilities or skills. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  You’re not parsing that correctly. To lower the standards of quality that are expected of something. Or To lower the standards of quality that are required for something. Lowering the bar is a reduction of quality. Lowering barriers is not the same thing.
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    By reducing the barrier to entry by, say, making the tests easier (or the use of build systems), then effectively you are reducing the quality of "applicants". Eliminate the barrier completely (get rid of the tests), and it is guaranteed that you will get many more applicants who would not be fit for whatever. Doesn't this make sense?
    - Jtsummers 8y ago
      This depends on what the barrier is. A financial barrier, for instance, to submit apps to an App Store does not introduce any quality test. So removing it doesn't reduce quality. If removing a barrier means removing a quality check, then sure it could lower the bar. But not all barriers are quality checks. Show that cargo removes a quality check, and you can come back and claim it's lowering the bar.
      - johnisgood 8y ago
        > This depends on what the barrier is. I know, but we are talking about this specific barrier. It is not a financial barrier that has been lowered either. Regarding this barrier: I already explained how it could be the case, by of course potentially losing skilled people, and as I said it is not without downsides. We could argue as much as we want, that doesn't really explain how it is inherently a good thing. In reality you get more lazy contributions and packages, take a look at package managers such as npm.

Example: A high application fee is a barrier. Lowering it does not lower the bar.

by finnh 8y ago

Example: A high application fee is a barrier. Lowering it does not lower the bar.

Definition: > To lower the standards of quality that are expected of or required for something "or required for something". I think it pretty much fits according to the definition, but it is usually used in terms of abilities or skills. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar

Jtsummers 8y ago
You’re not parsing that correctly. To lower the standards of quality that are expected of something. Or To lower the standards of quality that are required for something. Lowering the bar is a reduction of quality. Lowering barriers is not the same thing.
- johnisgood 8y ago
  By reducing the barrier to entry by, say, making the tests easier (or the use of build systems), then effectively you are reducing the quality of "applicants". Eliminate the barrier completely (get rid of the tests), and it is guaranteed that you will get many more applicants who would not be fit for whatever. Doesn't this make sense?
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    This depends on what the barrier is. A financial barrier, for instance, to submit apps to an App Store does not introduce any quality test. So removing it doesn't reduce quality. If removing a barrier means removing a quality check, then sure it could lower the bar. But not all barriers are quality checks. Show that cargo removes a quality check, and you can come back and claim it's lowering the bar.
    - johnisgood 8y ago
      > This depends on what the barrier is. I know, but we are talking about this specific barrier. It is not a financial barrier that has been lowered either. Regarding this barrier: I already explained how it could be the case, by of course potentially losing skilled people, and as I said it is not without downsides. We could argue as much as we want, that doesn't really explain how it is inherently a good thing. In reality you get more lazy contributions and packages, take a look at package managers such as npm.