On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> 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.
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :) > 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 http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
