On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > 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) :)
Yes I hate LOCs too. # of Active committers is enough for me. 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. 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 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
