Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7162B18F45 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29692 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2015 17:16:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29490 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2015 17:16:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29478 invoked by uid 99); 18 Nov 2015 17:16:45 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:16:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id EEB6BC5E5A for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:16:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rcbowen-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aCflTbzbOxWC for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com (mail-qg0-f42.google.com [209.85.192.42]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id C482021247 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so32500279qge.1 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:16:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rcbowen-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U8ppO7zi08AkJmHDo6RSi1Vv4N2yALnDkDprDT/g7j8=; b=voyxonM5Gm4URz7GPSTrZaBDLtkoMAIdlLSX7A/NEaGPrsxjIx/u1ZJRr0wTdyk+VP 3L2sP9W4nC9V+8DjFmEfm9uFGtyS0bEYLDez10GtLnJhD8dQyqso6W6TFc08XabAo1SM LvRt9B2+6UV3gfVVGCpnVvnATvi/LPFPSUjcpXpxkOMoNt4tRCipsjnGC17z2kfNMlDG pJnJgwlXUK18heIkgqjxWyq1fgqH3IH5Gxw6mmvjPccrnrYq5F71nv3ZvmNdPNLfJwvZ wsweFJFNOk8dN2EATU3JKyMkL3kBP0+gu63hYuCCsFf0bKx21EKTqr1leRr3/Ok/M8II YSng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=U8ppO7zi08AkJmHDo6RSi1Vv4N2yALnDkDprDT/g7j8=; b=mhtL4qdI3FrG+ujQVEcZfU5/728Lijge6fF5H84cXOqwFihCp4qQAAooMZUzJzgVIi HwaJRKWh5lcQFcdCrB+0ePrBOzGQg+vs/E65U8t488mFbf24x3oybF05kKHwhS09Lj0f UxQ/FyH7syKjbhlbyF6+VObkDoIwqMn2W7BqrsY5m9SGnwXLaehF2BWyKtNc7j5HSK35 IglRMpIaTKFkyguJTZ7UwsCd58F4bEb7Avjw06ja26VfI0ger5J7Q2s/goSQ5acHtDGY uJ2N0HIsr8oYC76mh/lBQg6vVpKx9qbwmHHbNI1m/cLfHUzdugeoCkgSHhfVvFHyWydR Kalw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAxofijpkmZMwrCmHAd7XubaqIg1ohBHi22pamprtgplxVk1bK+7niqhcFXplhLco0fHCJ X-Received: by 10.140.152.150 with SMTP id 144mr2925010qhy.8.1447866994704; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.214] (cpe-74-138-23-246.kya.res.rr.com. [74.138.23.246]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h11sm390340qge.43.2015.11.18.09.16.31 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:16:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans To: general@incubator.apache.org References: <8E93F8F8-51BB-4963-8864-35453F7D4BB5@gmail.com> From: Rich Bowen X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <564CB26D.7090603@rcbowen.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:16:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/17/2015 08:13 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > Hi, > > I suppose the distilled intention of the proposal is to identify the answer(s) to the following question: > > What makes a "good" open source project? > > As I read on general@ and from our project's mentors, "good" is grounded in personal experience (i.e. anecdotes). Why not use the data you gather to quantify "good." This way its not a "well I believe," its more of "in this particular situation given these variables, there is a X% success rate." Also, it leads to more exploration -- "Huh, I don't think I've ever seen an Apache project do it like that -- hell, give it a try and lets glean the stats from it. If anything, we learn." > > Personally, I'm all about: "Do whatever you want." (try it -- who cares as long as its legal). However, if there must be structure, perhaps The Apache Way is a local optima? Only a broad statistical landscape will tell. And only in data gathering and analysis will that landscape be constructed from the numerous, diverse social/technical experiments -- i.e. Apache projects! Without the openness and computational introspection, Apache podlings will simply internalize the objective of "just do as expected and graduate." The problem is that this only engrains a particular philosophy/approach that may not be fit in the long run. It just seems (to me) that this "carrot-on-a-stick model" of podling/top-level is outdated much like our modern education system (just take the classes, get the grades, give the teacher an apple, and get the hell out of here). > > Again -- just shootin' ideas. I have no bee-in-the-bonet or axe-to-grind. I've just become interested in how your minds tick... > So, I am a huge fan of collecting metrics, trying to squeeze wisdom out of them, and making community decisions based on what's likely to succeed. The trouble is, past performance is not a guarantee - or even a reliable indicator - of future performance, because there are so many variables to consider. So, yes, we should do this, but we should avoid trusting it completely, because it is known to fail. We can cite numerous examples of deeply dysfunctional, hostile, unhealthy communities that are HUGELY successful. Several come to mind immediately. We can also cite friendly, welcoming, well-managed communities that are unable to achieve any measurable success in terms of actual user adoption. In each of these case, the metrics are useful, and interesting, and worthy of study, and even suggest decisions that should/could be made. But they are misleading unless a human is there to interpret and implement them. I'd love to see more things like Black Duck and Bitergia, and see them being open sourced like some of the work that Roberto Galoppini has worked on, and see more intelligence and less shot-in-the-dark understanding coming out of them. If there is wisdom to be gained, and things that can be consistently reproducible, we should pursue that. So much in open source, however, depends on personalities, and we tend to attract some of the more ... ahem ... interesting personalities in the world. -- Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org