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 [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism
