Sent from my tablet On Dec 12, 2012 5:21 PM, "Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona" <[email protected]> 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: > > > > > > http://bitergia.com/public/previews/allura/2012_12_allura/ > > > > > > 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. Ross > > Saludos, > > Jesus. > >
