I open sourced my scripts I wrote a while back to measure incubator mentor health, etc.
Not sure if this is entirely related, but it's here: https://github.com/chrismattmann/apachestuff/ Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> Reply-To: "dev@community.apache.org" <dev@community.apache.org> Date: Monday, August 4, 2014 10:17 AM To: "dev@community.apache.org" <dev@community.apache.org> Subject: Re: Measuring Contributors, Contributions and Community Actvity >Being perhaps a late comer to this thread (just got back from vacation) >I need to ask: what is the problem we're trying discuss here? > >During my tenure at ASF I've definitely seen non-code contributing >project participants being treat with utmost respect and elected >all the way to PMC membership by some projects. I've also seen >code contributing heavy-hitters being treated like crap by some other >projects. > >Honestly, I don't think this is a function of terminology. > >An orthogonal issue, is that of community health metrics. I tend >to be in the camp that considers them extremely valuable source >of feedback. To that end, there's currently an effort underway >to get some sort of POC in place and let others clearly see the value. > >Now that I'm back from my vacation (and a prior 3 weeks of corp. >sprit to OSCON) I honestly expect to have more time to dedicate >to the project. In anybody on this list is interested -- the more the >merrier. ;-) > >Thanks, >Roman. > >On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> Noah, >> >> First of all, and I guess that you are aware of this, the document ŒHow >>the >> ASF Works¹ describes the following roles regarding non-committing >> participants in the communities of the ASF projects: >> >> The *user*: A user is someone that uses our software. >> For the sake of brevity lets accept that this can also be an >>organisation >> that consumes the work of a project, and is represented by a person. >> >> The description then reads on that these Œusers¹ contribute to the >>Apache >> projects by providing feedback in the form of bug reports and feature >> suggestions. And users participate in the Apache community by helping >> others on mailing lists and support forums. >> >> The *developer* (aka the *contributor*): is a user who contributes to a >> project in the form of code or documentation. They take extra steps to >> participate in a project, are active in the developer mailing list , >> participate in discussions, provide patches, documentation, suggestions, >> and criticism. >> >> Both descriptions use the word Œcontribute¹, but the first group of >> participants is regarded as users (not contributors), and the second >>group >> does (more or less) the same as the first group (but has this aka >> Œcontributor¹ which the first doesn¹t have, but is also described as >> Œuser¹). >> >> I would say that a user of the work of a project participates in the >> community, because he (or the organisation he represents) consumes the >>work >> and has questions thereabouts. Questions like: >> - What is this function we¹re talking about? >> - When will the function be released? >> - Where can I find the documentation? >> - Why does this function not work? >> - How should this function work? >> >> And why is that? I would say, because nine out of ten times the second >>most >> important work of the project is incomplete, inconclusive, to >>complicated, >> to extensive, etc. I am talking about the documentation related to the >>code. >> >> Or he might even rant about how shitty the work or the project is. >> >> A contributor is a person who does more than just ask these questions. >>He >> provides feedback in the user mailing list to such questions, he hold >> presentations on the project and the work of the project, he registers >>bug >> reports , he improve documentation or the code base of the project, or >> write books about the work, blogs, tweets, etc, etc. >> >> Nevertheless, without the clear-cut distinction between the two there >>will >> always be ambiguity about what a contributor is, and might lead to the >> (perception of) degradation of this participant to second class. As has >> been written about in the past few weeks. >> >> *Measuring contributors* >> When talking about measuring the number of contributors in a community >>we >> should first clear the definitions. >> >> Based on what a contributor does, one could say that it could be >>measured >> by whether a participant is subscribed to the dev mailing list and/or >>the >> equivalent of a JIRA account for registering bugs and patches. As it >>more >> likely that a contributor will register to the dev mailing list to >> participate there as well or have a Issue Mgt account than somebody who >>is >> just using the work. >> >> But that is not totally conclusive, as some contributors can choose to >> operate only in the user mailing list, or hold presentations. Such >> activities doesn¹t make them less of a contributor. So something more >>needs >> to be done there. Or am I wrong here? >> >> *Measuring community activity (project liveliness)* >> I agree with you that measuring the number of unanswered threads in the >> user mailing list says something about community activity. But, the same >> goes for unanswered threads in the dev mailing list. So that should be >> included as well when trying to have something conclusive to say about >>the >> liveliness of a project. >> >> But why exclude trends in influx of new users and new contributors, as >>both >> also say something of the liveliness of the community and hence the >> project? The first indicates adoption, the second commitment. >> >> The first aspect (new users) is easy to measure by counting the new user >> mailing list registrations in a period, or even the first posting of a >>new >> registrant, or the combination of both. This should be feasible to >>achieve. >> Or isn¹t it? >> >> The second aspect (new contributors) can be measured by registrations of >> new accounts in the dev mailing list of a project, and/or registration >>of a >> JIRA (or equivalent) account. Or even the number of reactions made by >>each >> registrant to a thread in the user mailing list. But I suspect that it >>also >> needs to be a combination of sorts. Don¹t you agree? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Pierre Smits >> >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >> Based Manufacturing, Professional >> Services and Retail & Trade >> http://www.orrtiz.com
