On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I am not suggesting that these be 'the truth', I'm always in favor of > following up quantity with quality, but it might be a good step in the > right direction. > Thank you for saying this. In a world where on the quantitative side we measure what is easily measurable (vs what is important) on the qualitative side we reward things with a simple narrative (vs foundational work that might only show up in raw numbers) I appreciate any nuanced position. In order for these not to be "the truth" I would love recommending that projects report the numbers as well as an explanation, like we do for mailing list stats. (Am I being naive about this being useful?) And perhaps there is a follow-up question in reports like "what areas of contribution are not captured in these metrics or the existing report template?" where a project might call out those areas that we do not yet have automated visibility or a qualitative question, such as those Gris started with, etc, like community organizing, infrastructural on-call style work, StackOverflow answers, design work. I do not believe all of these things will appear in Jira, nor that Jira tasks are proportional to effort, nor that my list is representative. We could hope that projects report areas for us to consider, and then we have to opportunity to cross-pollinate, asking project A to comment on the areas that project B mentioned. The idea for bio information from new Jira users is separate, and good IMO if optional. To conclude on a somewhat mundane note... reporter.apache.org really dictates what a report looks like for most projects. Is a proposed change here the way to go? Kenn > > With regards, > Daniel. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org > >
