On 11/17/2015 08:13 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > Hi, > > I suppose the distilled intention of the proposal is to identify the > answer(s) to the following question: > > What makes a "good" open source project? > > As I read on general@ and from our project's mentors, "good" is grounded in > personal experience (i.e. anecdotes). Why not use the data you gather to > quantify "good." This way its not a "well I believe," its more of "in this > particular situation given these variables, there is a X% success rate." > Also, it leads to more exploration -- "Huh, I don't think I've ever seen an > Apache project do it like that -- hell, give it a try and lets glean the > stats from it. If anything, we learn." > > Personally, I'm all about: "Do whatever you want." (try it -- who cares as > long as its legal). However, if there must be structure, perhaps The Apache > Way is a local optima? Only a broad statistical landscape will tell. And only > in data gathering and analysis will that landscape be constructed from the > numerous, diverse social/technical experiments -- i.e. Apache projects! > Without the openness and computational introspection, Apache podlings will > simply internalize the objective of "just do as expected and graduate." The > problem is that this only engrains a particular philosophy/approach that may > not be fit in the long run. It just seems (to me) that this > "carrot-on-a-stick model" of podling/top-level is outdated much like our > modern education system (just take the classes, get the grades, give the > teacher an apple, and get the hell out of here). > > Again -- just shootin' ideas. I have no bee-in-the-bonet or axe-to-grind. > I've just become interested in how your minds tick... >
So, I am a huge fan of collecting metrics, trying to squeeze wisdom out of them, and making community decisions based on what's likely to succeed. The trouble is, past performance is not a guarantee - or even a reliable indicator - of future performance, because there are so many variables to consider. So, yes, we should do this, but we should avoid trusting it completely, because it is known to fail. We can cite numerous examples of deeply dysfunctional, hostile, unhealthy communities that are HUGELY successful. Several come to mind immediately. We can also cite friendly, welcoming, well-managed communities that are unable to achieve any measurable success in terms of actual user adoption. In each of these case, the metrics are useful, and interesting, and worthy of study, and even suggest decisions that should/could be made. But they are misleading unless a human is there to interpret and implement them. I'd love to see more things like Black Duck and Bitergia, and see them being open sourced like some of the work that Roberto Galoppini has worked on, and see more intelligence and less shot-in-the-dark understanding coming out of them. If there is wisdom to be gained, and things that can be consistently reproducible, we should pursue that. So much in open source, however, depends on personalities, and we tend to attract some of the more ... ahem ... interesting personalities in the world. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
