16 Mar
2010
16 Mar
'10
11:37 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Yep :)
Thanks
-Vincent
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:
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. 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 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.
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