Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Google Analytics on download.openoffice.org
From: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksog8zjdM=btGes_YWO1acyHL5jp+7HzDbEYD6OsX1vOm=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	 <CAP-ksogKteT0kVJFZqPEyreb2YiXWoCv-t8CZ2bf4E0v-rkJsA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4F6C9EC7.1020905@gmail.com>
	 <87B80DCE-449A-4716-B777-FDBAF93350E6@gmail.com>
	 <CAP-ksohq7pGdHAytnxL_nf-BDcxwZdeV9q5m2YWsJjm8cgn6yg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1332787580.20875.20.camel@sybil-gnome>
	 <CAP-ksog8zjdM=btGes_YWO1acyHL5jp+7HzDbEYD6OsX1vOm=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:44:32 -0400
Message-ID: <1332791072.20875.30.camel@sybil-gnome>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 15:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 10:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2012-03-23, at 12:03 , Kay Schenk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 03/21/2012 07:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > > >> I'd like to enable Google Analytics on our download page.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This would allow us to collect some important data, such as the
> > > > >> geographical distribution of download requests.  This information
> > has
> > > > >> been sought for 3.4 mirror distribution planning. It can also
> > provide
> > > > >> continuity of our download statistics which we would otherwise lose
> > > > >> when moving off of MirrorBrain.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course, if some else is willing to implement an alternative way
> > of
> > > > >> collecting this info, then I'd love it hear it.  But I think GA is
> > the
> > > > >> most direct method.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lazy consensus, 72 hours, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Rob
> > > > > This sounds fine with me. Yes, we should state our privacy policy on
> > > > use, and at some point, if you do produce a public report, maybe nix IP
> > > > addresses if that's a concern.
> > > >
> > > > I think nixing IP addresses is a necessity, if one were to publish this
> > > > data, as is informing the downloader of the privacy issues.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This part is really easy, since Google Analytics does not provide us with
> > > IP addresses.  It is giving us aggregate information, not per-user
> > > information.
> > >
> > > FWIW, we used to use several means to track downloads of the binaries.
> > None
> > > > was particularly great and none satisfied the desires of corporate
> > > > marketing. And all made some in the corporate hierarchy uncomfortable,
> > if
> > > > only because a download of a binary is hardly the same as a
> > contribution to
> > > > source.
> > > >
> > > > We used Google Analytics but also, as was then called, Omniture.
> > Selected
> > > > data were published in graphical form to the services wiki.
> > > >
> > > > In addition, more or less from the start, I published spreadsheets of
> > > > downloads, and particularized it according to language but not region.
> > (I
> > > > also listed OS of version downloaded.)  There were many problems to
> > these
> > > > spreadsheets, as I noted at http://stats.openoffice.org/, not least of
> > > > which was spurious duplication and misleading numeration.
> > > >
> > > > What I always desired was a mechanism by which a successful download
> > could
> > > > "call home", thus supplying rather useful information. In the end, a
> > > > version of just this was indeed done, via update calls, extensions,
> > etc.
> > > > However, there was no direct insertion of such a mechanism. If we were
> > ever
> > > > to do that, I would argue that we do need then to inform any would-be
> > > > downloader of the privacy issues.
> > > >
> > > > -louis
> > > >
> > > > PS Roberto asked me about the old data and if it a) was extant and b)
> > > > reflected geolocation. Answers: It was not extant, and I didn't keep
> > the
> > > > raw data. (I could probably find it stuffed into some archive, but
> > why? As
> > > > I pointed out to Roberto, the ODF Alliance information regarding ODF
> > uptake
> > > > is actually a better indicator, as most ODF implementations they track
> > were
> > > > or are based on OOo.)
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Howdy Louis, Kay, Rob, et al
> >
> > I've certainly delayed this long enough, longer then my intent in fact.
> >
> > There is no real question that analytics are important, Google is likely
> > the fastest and easiest road to acquiring them, I suppose.
> >
> > I'm glad that Louis added some historic view to the subject, it might be
> > worth noting that in the case of the Omniture data gathering campaign
> > individual site users could opt out.
> >
> > The real real question is access IMO, Louis also broached the subject of
> > his employer when he uses the phrase, "the desires of corporate
> > marketing". Historically of course, SUN or Oracle, the analytics where
> > the purview of the corporate owner. With Apache OpenOffice there of
> > course is no corporate owner, analytics are then a resource of the
> > Apache Software Foundation and from this flows, I would say, to the
> > (P)PMC.
> >
> >
> Or the other way around. I'm not sure the ASF claims primacy over the PMC
> in regards to data ownership.
> 
> 
> > This distinction I would submit means that the full analytics are not
> > available to any specific employer of someone volunteering their time to
> > the communal effort within AOO.
> >
> >
> Another way of saying this would be to agree that the information is
> treated as sensitive and it is not shared beyond the PMC except by
> agreement, e.g., via lazy consensus.  This would include sharing with
> employers, but also sharing with other open source projects, etc.

hi Rob,

Yes, I would say we are in agreement, the data is sensitive, access is
premised on ones membership on the PPMC, use beyond the public reporting
is possible with agreement of the PPMC, lazy consensus works for me.
Open, transparent and shared being my desire.

//drew


<snip>