On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Sander Striker wrote: > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:59:34 +0200 > From: Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom > > > From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:47 PM > > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200 > > "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. > > > > Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise. > > ;) > > > By the way, > > > > > Same for posts; > > > it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. > > > > How can you measure the quantity? Do you guys have nice > > *scientific* tools? To tell the truth, I have already > > posted to apache.org mailing lists (including jakarta/xml/ws/http...) > > around 1,000 (I've counted it up... today :-). > > Yes, I have a nice *tool* for these kind of things, however, > > I am afraid you do not have. > > Personally, I don't measure quantity at all. I'm not sure who does.
About the only time I ever pay any attention to quantity is when considering a potential new committer (or considering proposing someone). But even then, quantity and longevity (i.e. sustained contributions over time), tone (helpful/sarcastic/asshole), usefulness (well-researched bug reports are worth more to *me* than diatribes; so are answers to questions on the user mailing lists worth more than patches) and other factors overlap themselves in complex, non-linear ways. There's no way for me to define any sort of algorithm that could be used to calculate a statistic for measuring the overall "worth" of someone's contributions. Besides, even if *I* could do so, it wouldn't be any more useful to *you* than your typical benchmark results, because the test conditions would be different for you than for me :-). > > > In such situation, (and I am embodin' cross-project participation) > > how can you measure *my* participation in the apache.org activities? > > Participation is subjective. There is no science involved to be honest. > For the rest, we don't use stats. If someone does something in > your project and you think "hey, that's really nice", that's what > sticks. A few of those usually buys commit access. Sustained > contributions over a longer period usually lead to addition to > the PMC*. All pretty subjective. The test is really if the > group is of the same mind. > > > ... This is really *what* I've wanted to know, because half of the > > *ASF members* are parcitipating "only" http.apache.org mailing lists, > > AFAICS. > > Because half of the ASF members are working on the HTTP Server project. > I'm sure you'll see a lot of members on the APR project aswell. Both > PMC's have few people who aren't members. I've also seen the ratio change substantially over the three years that I've been a Member. But even that doesn't matter - the Apache folks who work on HTTPd and APR are just as much a part of the Apache community as I am (who work primarily on a few Jakarta related things). And vice versa. As with trying to score merit on posting volumes, Tetsuya is pulling a particular statistic out of the air that does not have much relevance to anything. At best, it's the obvious outcome of the historical mechanism by which the ASF came into existence -- so what? > > > Please tell me. Gentlemen. > > > Sander Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
