16 Mar
2010
16 Mar
'10
11:43 a.m.
On 03/16/2010 11:37 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yep :)
Thanks
-Vincent
>
>> So it would work like this:
>> * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed
>> * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore
>> * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide
what to do with its listing
>>
>> In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and
anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get
started.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to
>>>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very
much
>>>> encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more
important
>>>> on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel
we
>>>> need at least a general agreement from the community at large before
doing
>>>> anything.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
+1.
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yes I hate LOCs too.
# of Active committers is enough for me. WDYT?
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest
loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :) Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the
> XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at
> http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
>
> The Governance page is currently at:
> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
>
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki
Committers."
and
"Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be
in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would
be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for
himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public
dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at:
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth
but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of
commits - if that's doable of course.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with
them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not
strictly defined" if we agree. For the first one, if we really want a definition
(I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly
enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit
every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code
reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this
case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define
"significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is
active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list
if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be
listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.