Hi All, Some of you with long memories may recall previous threads about project diversity.
At the end of one such debate, I put forward some ideas about what items might benefit from some good practice guidelines (see below). My special interest is Qpid, as I'll happy submit, and the discussion previously raged about diversity measures for graduation. There was much debate, and support for subjective assessment. All good stuff, but I'd like to capture the kinds of best practices measures people used in that debate. I'd like to pull some documentation together to flesh this out. *Would anyone care to work with me on this, and then I'll bring it back here for review/discussion/contribution ?* I was hoping for the gnarly wisdom of an old-timer :-) What do you think ? Thanks & Regards, Marnie My previous post was: Hi All, I can definitely see the value in having rules that allow for discussion and some subjective assessment of podlings by the IPMC. I think some additional detail (best practice style ?) around what a diverse community looks like from various angles would be really helpful for podling projects. Some of the angles discussed recently came as a surprise to me and it'd be good to see what other people's suggestions would be. For example: - Committer activity over a given period i.e. what should this look like, how diverse should this be, what would a problematic position be, on trunk/branches etc ? - PMC make up. We've taken a slightly different approach to PMC composition (no bar to entry beyond the committer bar, but on a committer requested basis), thinking it applicable. Recent discussions have highlighted that the PMC make up is perhaps more important than general committer composition on a project and thus we should strive to make it diverse by encouraging (nominating) committers on to the PMC for diversity reasons ? - Code vs documentation weighting. Some projects have contributers whose focus is specialised in a particular area like documentation. What do we include when considering diversity from this perspective i.e. document changes, svn commits, JIRAs created, release management tasks - List contribution. I think this one is tricky to measure, as we all have different ways of working. Some of us (me :-) speak a lot, others less so but perhaps in a more precise fashion and are effective. We include list contribution as one of the factors assessed before committer-ship. I'd have hoped that would be enough, but maybe not all projects assess this in the same way ? In conclusion, I can see that no objective bar applies in some of these areas. I do think that the IPMC (and others) views on what a good example looks like or what some differing, but diverse, projects look like would be helpful. I've left out 'legally independent' (argh) but I thought that the idea of salaried % was a good one. Maybe there's some scope for a set of measures and a guide around the must-haves & the nice-to-haves and some idea that you must not fail the diversity check on more than x nice-to-haves ?
