On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Keith Curtis <keit...@gmail.com> wrote: > One of the points I would like some clarification on is in the article > defending ASF by Andrew C. Oliver: http://www.infoworld.com/print/225555 > > In it, he wrote: "Nearly all of the very active Apache OpenOffice > developers work for IBM directly or indirectly." > > Can someone explain more about this? For example, is there a table showing > who everyone works for? From that, one could make a chart showing how many > of the code changes in AOO were made by various companies. LibreOffice > publishes such charts: > http://documentfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/developers6.jpg From > my research, I'd guess AOO 4 was at least 80% IBM, but I've not been able > to find out information on several people so it is an estimate. >
Two basic kinds of metrics: results-oriented and in-process metrics. The first tells you how well you did in your outcome. Things like numbers of downloads, number of positive reviews, sentiment analysis of twitter comments, growth in Facebook followers, number of regression defects reported, etc., are all outcome based metrics that tell us where we've done well or done poorly. In the end we're a software publisher, not a coffeeklatch, so success is based on what we deliver to the publish in terms of the OpenOffice product. The downside of outcome metrics is you cannot measure them until the work is done. So it is too late to make corrective changes if needed. That is why we also have in-process metrics, things that can be measured during the release cycle, things that correlate to future outcome metrics. This includes things like defect find rates, test coverage, etc. Both of these are useful kinds of metrics that support our overall goal of making a great office productivity suite available to millions of users for free. Metrics that do not measure results, or are not correlated with results, are not very interesting, though they may be the focus of other projects and used primarily for propagandist purposes. It is natural for those who have excellent results to point to their results, and those who don't to distract from their results. In any case I hope this helps explain why we are interested in particular metrics. Regards, -Rob P.S. If you do want a metric for project diversity, I did propose one on my blog a while ago, and showed that AOO was more diverse than LO. You can read it here: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/11/libreoffices-dubious-claims-part-3-developers.html I thought it was interesting, but since it is not an outcome and is not correlated with an outcome I do not think it worth the time to calculate this metric, other than to respond to FUD. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
