Forwarded with the permission of Gregorio Robles:


> From: Gregorio Robles 
> Date: 12 November 2008 21:17:29 GMT
> To: Xavier Heymans 
> Cc: Graham Perrin
> Subject: Re: Plone and QUALOSS - QUALity in Open Source Software
> 
> Hi, Xavier (& Graham)
> 
> El mié, 12-11-2008 a las 15:47 +0100, Xavier Heymans escribió:
> 
> 
> 
>> Hola Gregorio,
>> 
>> I've sent info about FlossMetrics on a Plone mailing list. Graham came up
>> with a number of questions.
>> 
>> Could you provide answers to the questions related to FLossmetrics?
>> 
> 
> find below my comments to Graham's questions.
> 
> 
> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>> Xavier
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> Graham Perrin wrote: 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> yes. All the FLOSSMetrics dataset is publicly available (with the
> exception of personal-related data like e-mail addresses for which special
> agreement is required) and we have close links to the QualOSS (we are part
> of that project as well) and SQO-OSS (FLOSSMetrics and SQO-OSS have a
> common partners, a Greek university).
> 
> 
> 
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> hmm... I cannot answer this question directly as I have not been involved
> in this part. I know that there are efforts to make the SME guide by
> FLOSSMetrics an on-going effort as the CALIBRE project succeeded to create
> an industrial forum (called CALIBRATION) that is still active today. But
> details should be asked directly to Carlo Daffara, which is the Italian
> partner who is in charge of this part.
> 
> 
> 
>> 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).
>> 
> 
> well, that's always problematic. We are targeting conferences and
> workshops were publications can be posted on our web site. For journals we
> are having more problems, but we are moving in that direction. For
> instance, although we have our concerns that this is the right thing to
> do, we have payed a recent journal publication to have our paper on Debian
> under a CreativeCommons license.
> 
> All in all, as Xavier knows, we are very much interested in interacting
> with the libre software community and probably journal papers are not
> targeted to them (they are boring, academic stuff). So, we arrange the
> FOSDEM Research room, have organized several more-community-oriented
> seminars and try to bring developers from projects to some
> more-academic-oriented workshops (as we have done with Apache recently for
> the WoPDaSD).
> 
> 
> 
>> 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/-tp1387483p1387483.html>.
>> 
> 
> the superiority lies mainly in the fact that the whole process in
> FLOSSMetrics will run transparently as we are used in the free software
> world, in the sense that all the machinery is licensed under a free
> software license and can be downloaded and run independently. Patches can
> be submitted, comments are welcome, pointing out errors will be easier. On
> the other hand, data sources will be provided in multiple fashions: raw
> and final/combined. Oloh only provides final/combined metrics.
> 
> All in all, Oloh is at this time a year ahead of our efforts, but we are
> making the gap smaller.
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> well, we have had much interest in this before FLOSSMetrics (I started
> working on this in 2002!) and will still work on this after FLOSSMetrics.
> After all this is our research line and not only a project funded by the
> European Commission.
> 
> regards, Gregorio
> 
> p.s. I'm cutting here as I guess the rest of the message has nothing to do
> with me. Correct me if I'm wrong,
> 
> — 
> Gregorio Robles           | GSyC/LibreSoft Research Lab
> http://libresoft.es/grex/ | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
> 


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-and-QUALOSS---QUALity-in-Open-Source-Software-tp1402419p2162288.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

Reply via email to