| 1 |
On 23/04/18 21:01, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:24:41AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:22:48 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> -- if Dev does not set Devaway, and/or devaway period is over ~6months |
| 7 |
>>> (say) and activity has fallen to zero .. commit privs get automatically |
| 8 |
>>> revoked (by script, not by human). An automated email is sent out to |
| 9 |
>>> that Dev, encouraging them to contact [insert project here] (eg. |
| 10 |
>>> Council, ComReS, DevRel, etc) if there is good reason for the absence, |
| 11 |
>>> the privs can be reinstated after a petition has been received and reviewed. |
| 12 |
>> The problem here is that not all contribution is "visible" on any |
| 13 |
>> metrics system. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> This is only useful in regards to measuring *commit* contribution. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> But there are many other ways to contribute to Gentoo, and not all of |
| 18 |
>> them monitorable by automated tools. |
| 19 |
> In one of the threads leading up to this pre-GLEP, I proposed a |
| 20 |
> requiring testable metrics for all activity. It was dropped for |
| 21 |
> simplicity, as it's probably something that would merit it's own GLEP. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It would NOT be a way to measure >1 contribution, but just a way to show |
| 24 |
> the date of last contribution for each project where a dev is active. |
| 25 |
> Specifically it would NOT disclose what that action was (because the |
| 26 |
> action in itself may be protected/private information). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Commits: last commit date (on both public & private repos). |
| 29 |
> Bugzilla: last comment OR action date (even if the bug is private) |
| 30 |
> Forums: date of last post OR mod-action (even if the post or mod-action |
| 31 |
> is in a hidden/private forum) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Bugzilla & Commits already do this effectively, it would be exposing the |
| 34 |
> data more readily, and adding similar functionality for other projects. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Think like an IRC bot responding to '!seen', but it only tells you when |
| 37 |
> the person was seen [optionally for a specific project], and not exactly |
| 38 |
> what they were saying/doing. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
I'm inclined to support the idea that <something> is marginally better |
| 41 |
than <nothing> and could be used as some form of evidence should there |
| 42 |
be need to substantiate a claim either way, and make it much less |
| 43 |
subjective ... |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Not looking for a perfect solution here, that IS impossible, just |
| 46 |
something that would aid metrics... |
Archives