On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 06:08 Europe/Rome, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:49:24 -0400 (Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom) "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit."Meritocracy"? Here is a gooooood stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
Statistics would not tell a lie. No prejudice, no favoritism.
Utterly wrong. Statistics are numbers. Numbers don't imply meaning in an absolute way. It's not the numbers that are important, but the meaning that is associated to them.
You can use statistics in *good* manner. Not "make bad use".
what? banchmarks have always had a different meaning depending on what side of the fence you look at them. I would say the opposite: it's hard to see statistics used in a good manner as they can be made to mean almost anything.
Counting email messages (just like counting CVS commits) has no merit meaning associated to them, just like Noel suggests citing Roy as an example.
And one counter-example is enough to throw your model down the drain.
if you run agora instead, you'll see a different picture. yet, I was careful not to indicate any number, because numbers tend to irritate people since they are so easy to compare.
--Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
