Hi,
The way I see it, the value in project metrics is mainly for newcomers
and for people who do not follow OPNFV very closely. There is already a
large number of projects, and
1. Some of them are not very active and some one might call "dead". It
would be good to prompt the PTLs of those project to initiate the
project closure process, unless they are determined to do something in
the future (nothing wrong with this).
2. It would be good to be able to highlight the most active project with
some metric. Then, as a newcomer, you would be able to focus on those ones.
The purpose of the project metric is to be able to somehow objectively
measure the projects. There is a large number of different metrics
defined so that any kind of project can show that they are active.
There could be a better way to clean out dead projects and pick the most
active ones. This is one way.
-Tapio
On 09/07/2016 09:24 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
+1.
Also note that when we defined the project lifecycle we used metrics
like the ones mentioned only as guidance rather than something to
compute a composite value – and even there, we did not constrain
things to metrics in OPNFV only.
Frank
*From:*SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3...@att.com]
*Sent:* Dienstag, 6. September 2016 18:48
*To:* Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com>; Raymond Paik
<rp...@linuxfoundation.org>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
*Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health
metrics discussion
I’m unsure of the overall value of this exercise. Simply ask the PTLs
what the “health” of the project is. An honest PTL will tell you, and
that’s the only type we should elect.
Publish metrics if you want (we already do), but I would avoid trying
to draw conclusions from them. We do not have the luxury (if you can
even call it that!) of creating and maintaining a
project-introspection framework ala what you might see in corporate
development shops. Even considering what metrics are “useful” for
specific purposes (e.g. what “useful”/reliable implications can you
draw from them) takes too much time away from the real work.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
*From:*opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
*Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:39 AM
*To:* Raymond Paik; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
*Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health
metrics discussion
Hi Ray,
thanks for posting the initial cut. IMHO a "composite score", as
proposed on the page, could be **very** misleading, especially for
projects which do most of the work upstream. So unless we track all
upstream repos and upstream Jiras (or similar), I would suggest to
**not** compute a composite score but evaluate things qualitatively only.
Thanks, Frank
*From:*opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
*Raymond Paik
*Sent:* Montag, 29. August 2016 19:33
*To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
*Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health metrics
discussion
All,
I had an action item from last week to start a wiki page for the
"project health metrics". You can find a proposal page at
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Health+Metrics.
Please add your comments/feedback via email or directly on the wiki
page. I listed four activity areas that was discussed on the TSC
call, but feel free to add other activities that the community should
consider.
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
