openstack team mailing list archive

["Qingye Jiang (John)" <qjiang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I do agree with you that the so-called "participation ratio" is a little bit misleading. I will consider your suggestion when doing the CY13-Q2 report. From the OpenNebula mailing list I got similar feedbacks, the reason being that the OpenNebula folks can always help the user resolve a problem with less email messages. Yes a neutral name for the parameter would be much better. Also I do agree that this parameter should not be related to the "activeness" of the community members. I will remove such judgements from the CY13-Q2 report.

I have not investigate the reasons for the ratio changes for OpenStack and CloudStack in their early days. This seems to be an interesting question, and I will try to answer that in the CY13-Q2 report.

I saw Jay's suggestion on removing review.openstack.org from the git domain analysis. Can you shed some light on how this system works? Is this system shadowing more real code contributors?

John





在 2013-4-3，上午3:25，Stefano Maffulli <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道：

> Thanks John, it's always interesting to see comparisons among different projects. Although comparisons are hard to make :)
> 
> I was looking at the "Participating Ratio", the ratio between “the number of  posts” and “the number of topics” that in your post you assume it represents the participation rate of an online community.
> 
> In your post you argue that "the number of replies to a specific topic represents the attention being received, and the depth of discussion for that particular topic" basically assuming that a high ratio is always better. I disagree with this assumption.
> 
> My explanation for decreasing depth of discussions is that the topics discussed are less controversial and require less amount of messages to close. For OpenStack, patches and changes to code are not discussed on the mailing lists anymore but they are debated (sometimes heavily) on review.openstack.org instead (which your tools don't capture) while afaik cloudstack and other projects seem to review patches on the -dev mailing lists. Comparisons across these projects are hard indeed.
> 
> You highlight OpenStack's decreasing 'participating ratio' leaving in the reader the impression that this must be bad but I don't think that's the right conclusion (nor the only one).
> 
> I would suggest you to rename "participating ratio" into "participating-bickering ratio": slightlgy longer but more neutral; lowering "participating-bickering ratio" is neither good nor bad and it forces reader to go investigate the causes (and you avoid being mis-quoted by some blogger/pundit that doesn't have time to dive deeper in the causes).
> 
> Have you investigated and found other reasons for why the participating-bickering ratio changes so much for OpenStack (especially in the early days) and Cloudstack?
> 
> Cheers,
> stef
> 
> PS just a heads-up: we've added https://ask.openstack.org in March to our properties, so next quarter please add it as a source to your dataset
> 
> 
> On 04/02/2013 02:32 AM, Qingye Jiang (John) wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I am glad to present to you the 6 edition of my quarterly analysis on
>> this subject. CY13-Q1 Community Analysis — OpenStack vs OpenNebula vs
>> Eucalyptus vs CloudStack is now available for your reading at the
>> following URL:
>> 
>> CY13-Q1 Community Analysis — OpenStack vs OpenNebula vs Eucalyptus vs
>> CloudStack <http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3120>
>> 
>> In this report I have added some preliminary analysis on the github
>> activities of these 4 projects.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Qingye Jiang (John)
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>