On 03/16/2010 11:37 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > 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?
+1. >>> 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 http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
