[Chaoss-members] [Oss-health-metrics] Growth Maturity and Decline Working Group Update

Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona jgb at bitergia.com
Thu Jun 14 22:50:54 UTC 2018


On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 23:59 +0200, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 13:52 -0700, dmg wrote:
> > Sean Goggins <s at goggins.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Hi All:
> > > 
> > > During our Growth Maturity and Decline Metrics working group 
> > > today we discussed two specific metrics:
> > > 
> > 
> > with all respect to those who are doing the work, I feel this 
> > method of defining metrics is flawed.
> > 
> > Take for example Pullrequest 13:
> > 
> > + [New Overall Contributors](activity-metrics/new-contributors.md) 
> > > What is the overall number of new contributors?
> > 
> >  +[New Contributors of 
> >  Commits](activity-metrics/new-contributors-commits.md) | What is 
> >  the number of persons contributing with an accepted commit for 
> >  the first time?
> >  +[New Contributors of Opened 
> >  Issues](activity-metrics/new-contributors-issues-opened.md) | 
> >  What is the number of persons opening an issue for the first 
> >  time?
> >  +[New Contributors of Closed 
> >  Issues](activity-metrics/new-contributors-issues-closed.md) | 
> >  What is the number of persons closing an issue for the first 
> >  time?
> >  +[New Contributors of Initiated Code 
> >  Reviews](activity-metrics/new-contributors-code-reviews-
> > opened.md) 
> >  | What is the number of persons initiating a code review for the 
> >  first time?
> >  +[New Contributors of Reviews for 
> >  Code](activity-metrics/new-contributors-code-reviews.md) | What 
> >  is the number of persons contributing with reviews of code for 
> >  the first time?
> >  +[New Contributors of Posted 
> >  Messages](activity-metrics/new-contributors-posts.md) | What is 
> >  the number of persons posting messages in mailing lists for the 
> >  first time?
> > 
> > Based on this definition, i assert that the number of new 
> > contributors to a project is equal to the number of contributors 
> > of that project. Anybody wants to prove me wrong?
> 
> Daniel, have a look at the pr. The metric is defined for a period of
> time. Or maybe I'm missing something?

/me kicks /me pretty hard for being so dumb.

You are completely right, Daniel, the pr does not mention in any place
that this is for a period of time. I was confused with the pr on
efficiency, which I was discussing in some detail during our meeting
today.

I'm so sorry for my confusion.

Please see https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pull/12/files for how we
are dealing with period in that other metric about efficiency.

Yes, the detailed definition of the metric (to be written) should
clearly state that it is defined over a certain period of time. If you
feel that should be in the name of the metric, which is the only part
which is written for now, we can discuss it. I see pros and cons to
have very detailed names for the metrics.

Again, sorry for the noise,

	Jesus.

> 	Jesus.
> 
> > What we need is to think more holistically and think more in term 
> > of what we are measuring.
> > 
> > First, "a new contributors" metric is not a _new_ metric. It is a 
> > derived metric. Is a filtering of an activity metric that has been 
> > filtered to particular subset of individuals.
> > 
> > We need to clearly define what we can measure and what we can 
> > derive from what we can measure.
> > 
> > here is a proposal:
> > 
> > perhaps we should first start with what we can measure. What are 
> > observable  entities? Then based on this entities define "lists" 
> > of activities.
> > Each activity has many attributes: type, who is involved with it, 
> > when it was done, etc. An activity is polymorphic.
> > 
> > Then we can define metrics in terms of filtering. For instance, 
> > "commits by first contributors" is the result of filtering 
> > activities of type commit such that we only capture the first 
> > commit from each person.
> > 
> > Now, there is also the issue of 'work' vs 'power'. Work is 
> > absolute (think physics), while power is avg power over unit of 
> > time.
> > 
> > The metric I defined above is absolute. If I want to compute its 
> > "time related" one I have to define a period, basically, the 
> > "average number of commits by first contributors" over "some unit 
> > of time".
> > or I can define it more fine grained, as a time series, where I 
> > compute the average over a fix period. Then the result is a time 
> > series.
> > 
> > for example: I can define the Time series of new contributors as:
> > 
> > montly new contributors = TimeSeries( count(filter <keep only the 
> > first activity of each contributor> activities)) per month
> > 
> > montly new commmitters = TimeSeries( count(filter <keep only the 
> > first activity of each contributor> filter <commits> activities)) 
> > per month
> > 
> > 
> > Efficiency in PR 12 is flawed to.
> > 
> > Note that in this context, efficiency (as defined in the PR) is 
> > also an absolute metric:
> > 
> >    Formula:** 'issues_closed / (issues_opened + issues_backlog)'
> > 
> > but that is ok, because it can be converted into a time series.
> > 
> > We can still define it in terms of a filtering of the activities:
> > 
> > issue resolution efficiency = count(filter <type=issue and 
> > status=closed> activities)/ count(filter <type=issue and 
> > status=(not closed> activities)
> > 
> > but this rate is only useful when it is converted into a time 
> > series. So with my made-up-notation:
> > 
> > monthly issue resolution efficiency = TimeSeries(count(filter 
> > <type=issue and status=closed> activities)/ count(filter 
> > <type=issue and status=(not closed> activities)) per month
> > 
> > I personally  don't like the name "efficiency". Its meaning is 
> > rate of output to input. This is not what this is measuring. A 
> > project that did not have any new issues
> > and did not close an outstanding issue would have the same 
> > efficiency as in the previous period, but nothing has being done.
> > 
> > 
> > --dmg
> > 
> > 
> > > 1. New Contributors and 
> > > https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pull/13 
> > > <https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pull/13>
> > > 2. Issue Resolution Efficiency 
> > > https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pull/12 
> > > <https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pull/12>
> > > 
> > > These two metrics share the characteristic that their expression 
> > > is likely to be parameterized in different ways. You can follow 
> > > the examples and discussion on the associated pull requests, 
> > > noted above.
> > > 
> > > We encourage participation from community managers during our 
> > > next call, at 11am CDT on June 
> > > 28th. https://unomaha.zoom.us/j/720431288 
> > > <https://unomaha.zoom.us/j/720431288>
> > > 
> > > Whether or not you are able to make the next call, please review 
> > > and comment if you are interested on the two pull requests from 
> > > Jesus, noted above and here:
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pulls 
> > > <https://github.com/chaoss/wg-gmd/pulls>
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Jesus & Sean _______________________________________________
> > > Oss-health-metrics mailing list
> > > Oss-health-metrics at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oss-health-met
> > > ri
> > > cs
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Daniel M. German                  "Often a small and simple 
> > question can chisel away at the biggest problems"
> >                                    Levitt and Dubner
> > http://turingmachine.org/
> > http://silvernegative.com/
> > dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
> > replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oss-health-metrics mailing list
> > Oss-health-metrics at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oss-health-metri
> > cs
-- 
Bitergia: http://bitergia.com
/me at Twitter: https://twitter.com/jgbarah



More information about the Chaoss-members mailing list