On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 16:45 -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> >> But a close-to-zero month
> >> for those parameters says a lot about how inactive the community is, if
> >> you're interested in that.
> >
> > Well that's just it, we (the ASF) are not interested in that kind of
> > statistic.
>
> If I might clarify something that Ross is saying here ... (and taking the
> remark completely out of context to make the point)
>
> Alvaro's and Jesus's contribution to this project is all about statistics -
> statistics that are very valuable in measuring the activity and health of a
> project. We, the Allura project, are VERY interested in this kind of
> statistic. And as a community manager (and thus end-user of this particular
> feature), I'm very interested in having these kinds of statistics available
> about the projects I work with - not so that I can say that *this* project is
> a 8 and therefore worth my time, and *that* one is a 3 and not worth my time,
> but rather as a high-level dashboard to watch the project's health over time.
>
> When Ross says that we (the ASF) are not interested in that kind of
> statistic, he is *not* saying that your contributions aren't welcome or
> wanted on the Allura project, but rather that the ASF governance (the board)
> is interested in other kinds of things in reports to the board. The board is
> interested in the things specifically listed here:
> http://apache.org/foundation/board/reporting. One of those items is the
> "overall activity in the project over the past quarter", which can be
> interpreted a number of ways, but probably should be as brief as possible to
> receive the message. If a project has no releases for a quarter, or no
> commits for a quarter, the board isn't terribly concerned - there's many
> reasons that might happen. If a project has no commits for two years, we're
> going to be concerned.
>
> I don't know if you took Ross's statement that way, but it occurred to me
> while I was reading it, that in the context of a board report, he's
> completely correct, but if you read that in the context of your contributions
> to the project, it might result in the wrong conclusions. After all, we added
> you to the PMC as a result of those contributions.
>
Thanks a lot for the clarification, Rich. In this case, however, no, I
didn't take Ross comments as "we don't want this for Allura", but, in
the line you mention, "for the current practices of the board with
regard to incubating porjects, maybe some brief numbers are useful, but
the rest in an overkill".
Which I guess I agree, after the explanations and comments by Ross.
Saludos,
Jesus.
