Xavier Heymans wrote: > … So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS > Community on these topics. … I would like to know if we could find some > "quality leaders" within the Plone and Zope community that could become > technical contact points to provide feedback to the researchers.
Glancing at the three projects under the Flossquality umbrella, I guess that some of the people with whom you wish to make links might hesitate, with thoughts such as these: 1) Will information that I provide to FLOSSMetrics be communicated appropriately, effectively and in good time to other relevant projects, in particular QualOSS and SQO-OSS? -- underlying wish: duplication of input/effort should be as close as possible to zero. 2) Can you demonstrate that deliverables of the three projects are being used effectively? For example, how are SMEs responding to the guides <http://flossmetrics.org/sections/deliverables> provided by FLOSSMetrics? -- underlying wish: what's in it for us? 3) Are the conference, journal and workshop papers and books listed at <http://www.sqo-oss.eu/index_html/research> easily and immediately available? -- underlying wishes: hyperlinks, open access (OA). 4) How will the analyses of (say) FLOSSMetrics be superior to the statistics of (say) Ohloh? -- underlying assumptions: apples and oranges, statistical discrepancies; <http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>. 5) After funding for Flossquality projects ends, how long will it be before another round of surveys and analysis? -- underlying hope: deliverables, methodologies et cetera from the current projects should be so forward-looking and adaptable that future projects/champions will positively wish to pick up the baton. Your answer to (4) might depend upon quality leaders coming forth from Plone, Zope and other communities ;) ---- Focusing on the highlights at <http://www.diigo.com/annotated/573bd2866683ab0136353688530ed63f>, in particular those under the heading 'Standards Compliant' and 'Plays Well with Others', I take the opinion that playing well is a most critical aspect. A system may be compliant, powerful and wildly popular; but if it can not _not_ easily play well with others, I'll avoid it. Why avoid? <http://www.diigo.com/list/Grahamperrin/software-halloween-morass> leads to a blog entry about 'The Conversation Prism' that visualises, in varying degrees of complexity, an impressive but dizzying (alarming?) range of social media. I have no desire to visualise the 300+ recognised content management systems, nor to substract (from visualisations of social media and/or CMS) the products/services that are not open source. I do take pleasure in knowing that Plone already has, or soon will have, the USPs/common selling points that people find appealing in other products. Because we can do so much with Plone -- with certainty -- I'll _avoid_ novelties or popularities that require proliferation (not always with the same certainty). --- Visually, I think of (Python -- Zope -- Plone core -- collective/add-ons) as being very rounded and cohesive. (Might Plone have fewer add-ons/extensions than other content management systems? Might statistical analyses of core and collective code bases suggest innovation/development around Plone is less than around other products? I have no idea but Visually, my recollection of Drupal was blockiness. LAMP/MAMP were four quadrants with less cohesion, less of a big picture. More maintenance. YMMV. A key distinction: -- as in the past I added user-requested functionality to Drupal, so it 'felt' (to me) more sprawling -- as more recently I add user-requested add-on products to Plone, so it feels more rounded. Playing well :) ---- Veering off-topic from Plone, but on the subject of EU/European Commission-supported initiatives, the following survey draws my attention: <http://groups.diigo.com/collaboration/forum/topic/we-value-your-opinion-eu-survey-on-internet-based-collaboration-in-support-of-the-research-process-6471> > EU survey on Internet-based collaboration in support of the research > process Does that survey have any relation to Flossquality work in progress? Best regards Graham Note to self: <http://www.diigo.com/list/Grahamperrin/software-halloween-morass> -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-and-QUALOSS---QUALity-in-Open-Source-Software-tp1402419p1446439.html Sent from the Evangelism mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Evangelism mailing list Evangelism@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism