| 1 |
On 18/07/17 20:56, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:12:42 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> What do you think? Would you mind getting that amount of mail once? |
| 6 |
>> Any other ideas? |
| 7 |
> From the mail I got, ( which I didn't mind ), I felt there was one |
| 8 |
> distinguisher that was missing: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> "active" vs "passive" membership. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Like, I get the impression ( with perl for instance ) that although |
| 13 |
> many of its members are "around", and they occasionally "do something", |
| 14 |
> I'm not sure they can all count as "There" in terms of staff-power |
| 15 |
> metrics. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If you make one commit every 6 months, are you really still "active"? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Its useful to keep them all on the list, because they're people who |
| 20 |
> have knowledge and can do the work if it comes there way, so I don't |
| 21 |
> think *removing* them is the right thing to do. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> But for keeping tabs on "do we need more staff or not", it just serves |
| 24 |
> as a confusing source of data. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
There seem to be a lot of devs who are 'on the list' but I never see in |
| 27 |
commit logs, etc. Sure they're devs alright, but they're not devaway, |
| 28 |
and yet they don't appear to be providing any meaningful contribution. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think mgorny was doing some general commit stats, and I have yet to |
| 31 |
compile my own, but it would be very interesting to see how many |
| 32 |
'active' team members there were in any given project. I suspect the |
| 33 |
results could be very telling ... |
Archives