on 6/23/03 8:42 AM Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Steven Noels wrote: > > >>Stefano's insightful post got me carried away to run some stats on >>members & projects: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/archives/001008.html > > > I've always stopped short of doing just this; and more kept things limited > to a pie diagram and postings/#of commits. > > This as it mostly shows 'today' rather than the members body which grew > over time and is effectively lagging. I.e. you are looking at data which > tells you more about history than about the future. And that todays future > is tomorrows history.
Dirk is right pointing out how a specific frame in time tells you the 'position' but not the 'speed'. Luckily, social dynamics don't exhibit the Heinsenberg principle. >>Please comment if you care, but keep the thread on community (or >>cocoon-dev). I'd love to hear your opinion. > > > My main interpretation is > > -> We are tremendously dynamic in terms of ratio's and > relative numbers; things turn upside down regulary. Yeah, in analysing dynamics, change in time cannot be overlooked. > -> xml and java are 75% of the activity; the 'old school' > has dropped below 20% now (Ignoring PHP here). > > -> Despite the enourmous influx of java and xml the ASF > as a whole is growing significantly slower than the internet. This might not be as bad as it seems: you fail to note that the growth of the internet is *not* necessarely the same growth of its technical side. When a technology matures, the growth indicates adoption, not necessarely increase in social technical substrate. I think the social technical substrate is growing much slower than the internet in general. And it might just be the same growth that we exhibit. Which would be totally fair. [no numbers to prove this, nor any idea on how to get those numbers] > -> Documentation is growing even slower; even including > translations. *this* is a problem. I'm currently spending all my research effort to overcome this. I think it's entirely possible. > -> Organisationally xml and java are still lagging behind; > but have been catching up (though the catch up has slowed down > somewhat due to a much larger influx from the old school > side; and that influx is by average younger than the proposed > influx from xml and java (in terms of lines of code and/or years > of activity on *MORE* than one project). the inertia of the foundation is big. but things are slowly moving. I expect more stabilization and new top-level projects in the future. this will help uniforming the foundation and participation. > -> Java (and to a lesser extend xml) is _actively_ under > represented and produces less orgaisational/infrastructure/legal > people than one would expect given the current relative number of > existing java/xml folks in organisational positions. That may > be a cultural thing. could be. could also be lack of information or lack of social contact with other parts of the foundation. In my todo list I still have some plans to increase the power of Agora as a community microscope. > -> In the java, and to some extend the xml world, we have much, much > much more code which was only touched 1-4 times by <= 2 people > over time. this is another problem and, IMO, it's a cultural thing as well: java people tend to like to reinvent the wheel, just because coding in java is easy and the WORA religion is a powerful engine. > -> the java world seems to need amazing number of indians (or > committers) relative to lines of codes or bugs fixed. And seems > to see more isolated pockets of people than the xml and other > parts of the ASF. I don't get what you mean here, can you elaborate more? -- Stefano. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
