On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 15:10 +0200, david blanchard wrote: > "1) Find the people who bring ideas more often than opinions. > 2) Find the people who are doing more than saying. > > This made me think that we'd need to find good ways to identify both > factors for our status/credits criterias, and for the ranking of > contributors of the homepage. What do you think?
We do - but it's tricky ;p To keep things simple at the beginning, we could simply give more weight to contributions to tools like the brainstorm/UserVoice (for ideas) or launchpad/task tracker than posts on the forum and mailing list. Then we keep these rules in mind, and progressively adapt the scoring to make sure these remains the main criterias. > Usually, in open source projects, is there a quantitative appraisal of > the work of contributors, based on number and importance of > contributions, quality of work, etc? It depends on the project - there are advantages to quantitative measures, but also drawbacks (it pushes people to "game" the system, and when it's not done right it tends to outweight the benefits). Launchpad/Ubuntu, for example, is using this; we even already have it for the part of the work that we do on Launchpad! https://launchpad.net/hackit/+topcontributors > For instance, for the passage from ‘active contributor’ to ‘occasional > contractor’, it would be interesting to have something based on > quantitative stuff. > But I’m not sure it’s possible, for instance if we have tasks that > require very specific skill that cannot be found in the active > contributor and we need to hire a contractor specifically for that, > even if he does not meet a list of quantitative criteria. I think we can start slow with this - first try to have some quantitative measures, and then progressively try to tie it to roles. We're going to need a lot of experimentation here - and at first we won't need it to know who should be credited where, so the automation can be progressive. > Do you have links with examples of the ways contributors are appraised > by their peers in open source projects ? It's usually a bit of public acknowledgment, some formalities (names in source code, credits...), reviews of concrete work (code reviews), the comments in the public discussions, and a lot of implicit recognition. Nothing prevents us to use it as a base, and go a bit further by also implementing a more formal appraisal process, especially for employees/contractors and those who volonteer to get it. Jono Bacon, Ubuntu's community manager, says he does it for himself sometimes. Xavier. _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
