After awaiting for feedback about my proposal, I understand there are
three different aspects that should be discussed:
* Cost: As Ross pointed, the potential prize is important to evaluate a
solution. Although I'd love to use the professional services of the
company, the toolkit is open/free software and be freely used, which
moves more attention to the next point.
* Infrastructure requirements: Specially in the case we decide to
provide all by ourselves, such service would have some infrastructure
requirements that need to be studied, as David correctly pointed.
* Technical proposition: In the end the first two aspect should not be
critical if the proposition brings some value, to the project-level,
Incubator or ASF.
I really see strong arguments against the proposal regarding the first
two aspects. The third is not that easy, since I do not see how such
metrics should be used for evaluating projects, rather than just
bringing some indicators.
Before taking the discussion to the next level, where costs and
resources need to be evaluated, I opened this discussion proposing my
time and personal resources to provide a simple proof of concept. Then
we should have more arguments (how much resources are actually required,
how useful are the indicators the dashboard provides, etc...) to move
the discussion to the next level.
But of course I'd like to have the good pleasure before investing time.
So I'd like to ask the following question: is there already any argument
to say that inevitably the answer of the proof of concept will be negative?
Cheers,
On 21/11/14 21:27, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
We already evaluated the Bitergia offering - it is expensive and does not
provide sufficient benefit for the money (don't get me started on how metrics
are not a good evaluator of open source code...)
I fully agree with the comments below.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:24 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: dashboarding incubator
On 21 November 2014 20:44, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
...I am generally against us standing up our own service that does this.
We've had a couple of these systems over the years. (pulse.a,o for
instance). It takes a non-trivial amount of work to setup and
maintain such a system, and invariably it falls apart....
I agree, OTOH if someone wants to help third parties get the data that
they need to implement such services externally that might be fine.
Having our own service will only marginally provide us with something better,
and will cost (in endeffect) contractor resources, so I agree with david.
rgds
jan i.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
--
Sergio Fernández
Senior Researcher
Knowledge and Media Technologies
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
sergio.fernan...@salzburgresearch.at
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
