cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: How ASF membership works and what it means
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:30:39 GMT
on 6/23/03 8:42 AM 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.

Dirk is right pointing out how a specific frame in time tells you the
'position' but not the 'speed'. Luckily, social dynamics don't exhibit
the Heinsenberg principle.

>>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.

Yeah, in analysing dynamics, change in time cannot be overlooked.

> ->	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.

This might not be as bad as it seems: you fail to note that the growth
of the internet is *not* necessarely the same growth of its technical
side. When a technology matures, the growth indicates adoption, not
necessarely increase in social technical substrate.

I think the social technical substrate is growing much slower than the
internet in general. And it might just be the same growth that we
exhibit. Which would be totally fair.

[no numbers to prove this, nor any idea on how to get those numbers]

> ->	Documentation is growing even slower; even including
> 	translations.

*this* is a problem. I'm currently spending all my research effort to
overcome this. I think it's entirely possible.

> ->	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).

the inertia of the foundation is big. but things are slowly moving. I
expect more stabilization and new top-level projects in the future. this
will help uniforming the foundation and participation.

> ->	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.

could be. could also be lack of information or lack of social contact
with other parts of the foundation. In my todo list I still have some
plans to increase the power of Agora as a community microscope.

> ->	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.

this is another problem and, IMO, it's a cultural thing as well: java
people tend to like to reinvent the wheel, just because coding in java
is easy and the WORA religion is a powerful engine.

> ->	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.

I don't get what you mean here, can you elaborate more?

-- 
Stefano.



Mime
View raw message