On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.
I would discourage any reasoning based on aggregate message counts. Every +1 on a PMC member VOTE counts as a message, for example. The thing to look carefully at is what is being discussed on the private list. A lot of discussion bearing on topics important to the direction of the project is bad, bad, bad. Healthy projects have quiet private@ lists because pretty much everything they need to talk about they can and do talk about on the public lists. But committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic spikes when they do. So I would not draw conclusions or do comparisons based on message counts. Better to compare what is actually being discussed. Phil > On Aug 29, 2015 02:42, "Marcus" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > >> In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list. >> >> I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently >> and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes: >> >>> So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely >>> superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of >>> traffic >>> on the "private" list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that >>> there >>> should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? >>> >>> I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little >>> out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me >>> intrigued >>> with this. >>> >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton<orc...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> From an AOO PMC Member, >>>> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on >>>> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and >>>> noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this >>>> level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message >>>> content >>>> and even the topics must be held in confidence. >>>> >>>> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current >>>> state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community >>>> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply >>>> should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the >>>> course >>>> of the year may provide an useful indicator. >>>> >>>> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC >>>> >>>> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through >>>> July, 2015, by role of the sender. >>>> >>>> 2015 | Private List Messages >>>> thru July | PMC ASF Other All >>>> >>>> Totals 1145 182 31 1358 >>>> Senders 22 23 23 68 >>>> Per sender 52.0 7.9 1.3 20.0 >>>> (average) >>>> Per day 5.4 0.9 0.1 6.4 >>>> >>>> Of all the messages sent, >>>> >>>> 84% are by members of the PMC, >>>> 16% are by other ASF participants, and >>>> 17% are by others. >>>> >>>> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers >>>> of >>>> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private >>>> list. The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache >>>> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to >>>> the >>>> PMC via private@. >>>> >>>> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so >>>> far this year, >>>> >>>> 49% of the messages are from the three >>>> PMC members who were the most vocal >>>> in the studied period. >>>> 75% of the messages are from the seven >>>> most vocal. >>>> 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the >>>> 22 PMC members that posted. >>>> >>>> I confess to being one of those top three posters. >>>> >>>> >>>> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION >>>> >>>> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied >>>> >>>> 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, >>>> about 0.8 new topics per day. >>>> The variance of 17 from the first tally >>>> is negligible and will not be corrected. >>>> The raw data is available for auditing >>>> by the PMC. >>>> >>>> 8.0 is the average number of messages on a >>>> single subject >>>> >>>> 5% is the portion of the overall messages >>>> used in the longest thread, one with >>>> 73 messages >>>> >>>> 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest >>>> discussion threads. The shortest thread >>>> in that group has 18 messages. >>>> >>>> 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest >>>> discussions. The shortest threads in >>>> that group have 8 messages. >>>> >>>> 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest >>>> discussions (i.e., half of the >>>> threads). The shortest threads in >>>> that group have 4 messages each. >>>> >>>> The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads >>>> having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. >>>> >>>> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and >>>> any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. >>>> >>>> [end of report] >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
