On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Jeffrey Altman<[email protected]> wrote: > On a separate not, I take great offense at your comment about "shaming" > the gatekeepers into doing something. Take a look at the analysis of > who actually has done something to improve OpenAFS > > https://www.ohloh.net/p/openafs/contributors > > What you will notice is that it is the gatekeepers that do the vast > majority of the work. That list is measuring authorship not commits.
I find your interpretation of those numbers dangerously distorting. Firstly, what is meant by "to improve OpenAFS"? If you're referring strictly to contributions accepted by the gatekeepers, then fine. However, I consider that a rather narrow interpretation given the vast amount of development work that goes on in the hopes that it will someday be accepted upstream. Secondly, commit count is hardly a useful metric, as it has only a slight positive correlation to actual work. In addition, things would look quite different if the stats took into account the efforts of various community members whose major contributions have been going through the review process for the last several years. Especially with the major development efforts, the current fiat-grounded power structure is biased in favor of contributions by the gatekeepers. Until a few years after we move to a just and meritocratic decision model with elected leadership, I don't think such metrics are likely to yield definitively useful information. -Tom _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
