cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Leung <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: How ASF membership works and what it means
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:59:46 GMT
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Stefano's insightful post got me carried away to run some stats on
>>members & projects: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/archives/001008.html
>>    
>>
>
>I've always stopped short of doing just this; and more kept things limited
>to a pie diagram and postings/#of commits.
>
>This as it mostly shows 'today' rather than the members body which grew
>over time and is effectively lagging. I.e. you are looking at data which
>tells you more about history than about the future. And that todays future
>is tomorrows history.
>  
>
Actually, the data tells you the results of history, not the path that 
history took to get there, which is just as important.

>>Please comment if you care, but keep the thread on community (or
>>cocoon-dev). I'd love to hear your opinion.
>>    
>>
>
>My main interpretation is
>
>->	We are tremendously dynamic in terms of ratio's and
>	relative numbers; things turn upside down regulary.
>
>->	xml and java are 75% of the activity; the 'old school'
>	has dropped below 20% now (Ignoring PHP here).
>
>->	Despite the enourmous influx of java and xml the ASF
>	as a whole is growing significantly slower than the internet.
>  
>
Is this good or bad?  I don't think that we can grow at anything close 
to internet rates right now.

>->	Documentation is growing even slower; even including
>	translations.
>
>->	Organisationally xml and java are still lagging behind;
>	but have been catching up (though the catch up has slowed down
>	somewhat due to a much larger influx from the old school
>	side; and that influx is by average younger than the proposed
>	influx from xml and java (in terms of lines of code and/or years
>	of activity on *MORE* than one project).
>  
>
In the case of XML, this stems partially from the manner in which the 
project was formed.  As was pointed out at ApacheCon this fall, both 
Jakarta and XML were kind of experiments.   This year a substantial 
amount of effort has gone into trying to change the results of those 
experiments -- namely the effort get projects to leave the umbrella and 
become top-level projects.  Note that for XML this happened in exactly 
one case -- Coccoon.  All the other projects in XML decided to either 
stay in XML or move to ws.apache.org, another umbrella PMC structure.

>->	Java (and to a lesser extend xml) is _actively_ under
>	represented and produces less orgaisational/infrastructure/legal
>	people than one would expect given the current relative number of
>	existing java/xml folks in organisational positions. That may
>	be a cultural thing.
>  
>
I think that we have multiple subcultures under the ASF umbrella, due to the way that the
umbrella projects were formed.  Whether you like that or not, I think that is the reality.
 I know that I personally would have remained fairly isolated had I not attended an ApacheCon
in 2001.

>->	In the java, and to some extend the xml world, we have much, much
>	much more code which was only touched 1-4 times by <= 2 people
>	over time.
>
>->	the java world seems to need amazing number of indians (or
>	committers) relative to lines of codes or bugs fixed. And seems
>	to see more isolated pockets of people than the xml and other
>	parts of the ASF.
>  
>
My impression on this is that the folks at jakarta have been more free 
(at least compared to projects in XML) with commit rights.  I don't know 
if this is actually the case, but it is my perception.

>Just for thoughd (and the above was taken from a 2002 count; it may be off
>now).
>
>Dw
>
>
>  
>



Mime
View raw message