On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:12 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 11 May 2013 17:17, 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. >> >> -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. >> > > I admit I am baffled (it that is the correct english expression). I make > the commit numbers available for the fun of it, with a clear note, stating > that due to the way commits are made it is NO expression of activity. >
And the numbers were immediately quoted, out of context on another website to make the very claim that you did not want to make. Thus my point about being carefully to not just quote numbers without also explaining what they mean and what they don't mean, the limitations of your approach, the assumptions, etc. > Having seen that some focus more on the commit numbers that the real issue, > I regret publishing the numbers, the top 5 list would have been just as > much fun. > Don't regret. Learn. This is a communications problem. We're working in a workshop with glass walls. That doesn't mean that we hide things. We can't. But it does mean that we need to be careful that what we say is accurate and described correctly. It is like how we're careful to talk about "50 million downloads" and not "50 million users'. Other projects don't take that care and conflate downloads and users. I seek a higher standard. And by that standard (which I cannot impose on anyone but myself) I don't think we should compare "this year" to "last year" when the time periods are of different lengths. In the end, your numbers are what they are. But let's make sure we're clear what they are, the limitations of the approach and the data, the possibile interpretations, etc. "svn log" is not an Oracle of truth. It is just the start of in investigation and if we're intellectually honest (as I know you are) we acknowledge those limitations. I'm not criticizing you on this. I'm just pointing out that we need to be up front about these things which you and I already know, because others reading this list may not know or care. > HOWEVER, fact is that we have a change in committers, in a downward spiral, > add this moment in time, our active base is not growing ! I see this as > normal in an opensource project who all have waves. I have however been > confirmed in how strong we are, by seeing how ideas to change it, have been > exchanged in this thread. > Your interpretation, not backed by the numbers you posted. Again, you are making strong claims that will be taken out of context by those who want to damage this project. I just you reconsider your approach. > That we dare take this discussion in public....that members openly > posetively react to my initial e-mail, just shows how strong we are !!! And > showing this will, is what will make are community grow in the years to > come, with volunteers growing to be committers. In order words it is not a > failure to be an a downward spiral it is a failure not to do something > about it ! > > If we on the other hand, as indirectly suggested, keep such information > secret and just shared by a priveledged few, it would not be a real Apache > Community. > Again, you've confessed that your English is not perfect. So let me be perfectly plain and simple on this. I have never said to keep information secret. I have never implied to keep information secret. To my knowledge no one else has asked or implied to keep information secret. If anything I'm asking us to share even more information about the limitations of the data and your approach. > We can, and have started, doing things to counteract the spiral, which > makes me proud of being part of AOO. > > rgds > jan I. > >> > >> > [ ... ] >> > >> > 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
