--On Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:25 -0800 Mark Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "John Stracke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality
>> of the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics
>> is better than not measuring anything at all; it gives a first-order
>> approximation.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Some metrics (lines of code written per day, number of bugs found per
> person, etc) are *actively* harmful to gather & report.
True, though I thought LOC counting was done as an initial metric until
(much) better things were found.
> Counting RFCs looks like it's bad the same way that pure LOC counts
> are bad.
>
> Saying "we must measure *something*" is the Politician's Fallacy ("we
> must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.")
I found the parts of the document that would enable more subjective
measurements (like documenting the progress of documents within the group)
more interesting than the actual "counting".
