On May 11, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> > wrote: >> +1 +1 +1 ... >> >> When a project that is committed to working in public raises the draw >> bridge, circles the wagons, or goes dark in any way, the detractors win by >> seeing their insecurities and animosities confirmed in us. > > And no one has said otherwise. My point is merely that one should be > careful about labeling a data point "this year" in comparison with > "last year" if this year is not actually 12 months long yet. This is > not rocket science, but it does require some thinking to appreciate > that the comparisons are sloppy and will be likely confused by the > casual reader of the list. > > >> Be of strong heart and goodwill. Stay the course. >> >> - Dennis >> >> PS: I am vicariously proud of the work that Rob Weir does to provide an >> account for data sources and what the analytics are for the resulting tables >> and visuals. That is great, transparent work. When others provide concrete >> improvements, rather than using the unavoidable uncertainties to impeach the >> work, it raises the bar for all of us. There are those whose adversarial >> view of the world only admits the blemishes and not the accomplishments. I >> am pleased that such impoverished views be ignored in favor of furthering >> the Apache Way. > > My suggestion for improvement, in case you missed it, was to compare > equal time periods, e.g. January-April 2012 with January-April 2013.
Even those types of comparisons are difficult. For example to look at number of file commits in 2011 would see a lot of arist, Kay and wave activity which was entirely related to AL2 headers and transferring OOo-site. Also people's activity ebbs and flows as a function of interest and workload. Currently my workload is very high. Lots of 12 hour days at $dayjob. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] >> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 06:23 >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Statistic over committer activity. >> >> [ ... ] >> >> We chose to respect the Apache Way and hold all our discussions in >> public: all project planning is done on this public list. This is a big >> challenge. We have no other channels, so any discussions on how to >> attract new developers and any supporting figures that can help that >> kind of discussions belong necessarily here. >> >> On the other side, people who've been around for a while know (and now >> Jan knows too!) that numbers that may be functional to support certain >> claims will be selectively taken and republished without any kind of >> disclaimers or analysis. This happens and will continue to happen, and >> if people cannot find figures on this list they will make them up, or >> hand-wave, or whatever. >> >> [ ... ] >> >> So, more than the numbers themselves (all numbers have problems, >> especially when analyzing commits and doing that over different periods >> of time), let's keep the good discussion on how we can make contributing >> easier for newcomers and occasional contributors. We will always need it. >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
