On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:00 -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote: > John McCreesh wrote: > > So I like to think of OOo as a community of different projects, each > > valuing their contributors according to how they contribute to that > > project's aims. > > I understand that OOo was modeled after Apache, which is definitely a > group of largely independent projects. > > > We maybe need some mechanism whereby people gain community points for > > doing things, and maybe lose them for just creating noise on lists :-) > > That might be either a fantastic idea or a horrible one depending on who > gets to assign the points. I can see two extremes that are obviously bad:
I think John was kidding - I hope so anyway! Any attempt to measure contribution is likely to be devisive because someone somewhere will feel under-valued. How do you compare someone who spends 300 hours copying and distributing OOo CDs with someone else that persuades a local government to switch to OOo? Or someone that helps someone else to do a specific job and doesn't generally publicise it? Someone rang me to-day and asked me for an OOo CD. Do I have to post every instance like this to the list to collect some points? And why would I want to collect these points anyway? In fact the Gold INGOT is a potential recognition for contributions since to achieve it one has to do 25 hours of useful community service in an Open Source project. But apart from some broad bench mark I would not try and quantify a contribution with any more precision as I don't believe it would be valid. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
