incubator-allura-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona" <>
Subject Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Dec 2012 ([ppmc])
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:24:35 GMT
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:29 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my tablet
> On Dec 12, 2012 5:21 PM, "Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona" <>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 10:48 -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 1:37 AM, Alvaro del Castillo wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have updated our Allura report:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In Bitergia we are reviewing all the data to be sure are ok.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we can use some of this report info for the PMC/Board report.
> > >
> > > Thanks. I've updated the URL in the report, but if you'd like to add
> specifics to the report, please let me know what you'd like to add.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know if it would make sense to either include some numbers (such
> > as number of commits, committers, etc for the period) or charts (those
> > could be screenshots of the charts in the report, linking to the report,
> > or we could build some JPEG figures if that suits better. It all depends
> > on the level of detail you consider reasonable.
> Generally speaking statistics are not important at all. They tell us
> nothing about the health of a community, whcih is all a board report should
> be concerned with. A single prolific contributor, or one seeking
> tommanipulate the stats, can make the stats look good, but that doesn't
> mean the community is healthy. That being said some numbers are useful
> indicators.
> When reviewing reports I'm interested in when the last release was made,
> that patch queues are not growing, that new committers are being brought in
> etc. Notice all these are about community health (i.e. new users get early
> access, contributors are getting attention, the community is
> creating/maintaining diversity), rather than about technical engagements
> (number of posts to mailing lists, number of commits etc.). If you can
> include infomlike this it would be good.
> All that being said I think it would be good to include any stats you think
> might be useful and ask the IPMC and board for feedback on their utility in
> board reports.

Thanks for the feedback, Ross.

This is quite interesting. When producing a report, it is much better if
we know what we're looking for. If you're interested, we could talk
(maybe off-list, to avoid noise to people not interested) about what
could be interesting for this purpose, and we can try to figure out how
to produce useful data. If we can script it, the data could later be
produced automatically. Let me know if you have time / interest to give
this idea a try.

I also understand your concerns about the meaning of parameters and the
possibilities of cheating. Numbers are just numbers, you have to
interpret them. The fact that somebody has a weight of 160 kg and a
height of 1.70 m doesn't say if that person is healthy or happy. But
maybe that can give an useful indicator. The case of the general stats
for a project is the same. Having a large number of commits and
committers doesn't imply a lot of action in a community, and of course
it says nothing about the code being produced. But a close-to-zero month
for those parameters says a lot about how inactive the community is, if
you're interested in that. The distribution of the time-to-attend or
time-to-close tickets is not a direct indicator of anything, but it
could signal problems or improvements. More complementary information
may be needed, of course, to reach conclusions. WRT cheating, well, good
will is assumed. A written report on the status of a project could also
be cheated.

But I know you know all of this ;-) I don't want to convince anybody.
Just if this can be helpful, let's go on. If it can't, let's forget
about it. Probably the best thing is to focus in trying to show
parameters that could be of interest for the specific purpose you
mention: help in the evaluation of incubator projects.

Again, thanks a lot for your feedback.



View raw message