I think I agree with both of you... On 12/05/2016 09:41 PM, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
I have seen way too many metrics being misused to justify the wrong actions
...measuring the wrong thing at the wrong time or in the wrong way can be *extremely* harmful, yes...
On 12/05/2016 01:07 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
- Do we spend any ASF resources on this (I'm thinking money/paid time here)? - Do we enter into any form of legally binding contract with GSoC? If the answer to both are 'no', then I'll certainly not stand in the way of people wanting to do this - but if even one of them is 'yes', then we (the PMC at the very least) owe it to the foundation (and ourselves) to justify this on a recurring basis.
...but it is still important to justify why the ASF is doing something, especially if contracts are on the line.
What about a softer metric to start with: "What percentage of past and current Apache GSoC mentors feel like their involvement has been beneficial, either for their associated Apache projects or for the greater open source community?"
Both high and low percentages here are, IMO, instructive and useful in their own right. A middle-of-the-road answer means we'd have to dig into the "why do you feel that way?" question more to reach any conclusions, but again, that's still useful.
(Compare, for example, with the metric "What % of code developed by GSoC students actually becomes a part of the project codebase at the end of the project?" In this case, an extremely high percentage could mean that GSoC is "successful", or it could mean that GSoC code gets into codebases regardless of its quality, or... Likewise, an extremely low percentage could mean that GSoC is "unsuccessful", or it could mean that GSoC is being used for more experimental efforts that are providing value to projects in some other way, or...)
--Jacob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
