Hello Eric,
I was thinking about some kind of metrics, too.
Not as advanced as yours, of course :-) But then
I felt that a ranking is not the best approach. It
may lure people to use tricks just to improve
their ranking.
There should be something that indicates the
kind and volume of contributions, sure. Like
"that many mails", "that many bug reports", and
so on. But instead of trying to compute a ranking
from it, I would prefer a randomized order, with
the kind and volume of contributions listed for
each person. Maybe with some "hall of fame"
into which the major contributors can be voted.
Somehow I feel that the social issues should not
be tackled with a purely technical solution.
cheers,
Roland
Eric Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15.03.2004 22:52
Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project"
To: Commons HttpClient Project
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: @author tags
At the risk of adding fuel to an unproductive discussion, I thought I'd
throw in my comments:
[...snip...]
Having noted some of the "social" issues, I do have to say that this
mailing list has been very friendly and welcoming, and my compliments to
everyone for keeping it that way.
While not an entirely accurate measure, I have an urge to suggest a
mathematical and statistical recognition metric, combining:
* # of emails written to developer list
* # of patches submitted
* # of responses to bugzilla issues, wherein said person is not the
reporter of the particular issue.
* # of bugzilla issues reported, wherein reporting does not result
in an INVALID categorization
* negative points for each INVALID Bugzilla report (people wasting
time and energy on behalf of the group)
* Other contributions?
My gut instinct is that some of these contributions should be weighted
more than others, but seeing as this is a quagmire, I'm not sure I'd
want to suggest what that weighting would be - at least not yet. The
resulting number could be used to generate a ranking, and possibly a
weighting of each contributor.
With each release, the tally should be accumulated for some time period
prior to that release (6 months?), and those people should be recognized
in the release notes, and perhaps also on the web site.
Such a metric would at least be an improvement over what we have now.
It would at least recognize people who do "nothing more" than track down
bugs. It would also give us some visibility into the size and
involvement of the HttpClient community.
Darts welcome!
-Eric.
Michael Becke wrote:
> The ASF has recently recommended that we discontinue use of @author
> tags. When first starting out I always enjoyed seeing my name in
> "lights", though I do agree with the ASF's opinion on this matter. If
> we come to a consensus to remove @authors I suggest that we remove
> them from all existing code, as well as leave them out of new
> additions. Any comments?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Begin forwarded message: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
>
> <snip>
>
>> - author tags are officially discouraged. these create difficulties
in
>> establishing the proper ownership and the protection of our
>> committers. there are other social issues dealing with
collaborative
>> development, but the Board is concerned about the legal
>> ramifications
>> around the use of author tags
>>
>> - it is quite acceptable and encouraged to recognize developers'
>> efforts
>> in a CHANGES file, or some other descriptive file which is
>> associated
>> with the overall PMC or release rather than individual files.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
