On Tuesday 14 January 2014 19:16:28 Jim Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:09:04 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
That said, there does perhaps need to be a method for measuring contribution.
I have no problem with showing what people do. I think just showing the person "logging in to connect" or whatever system what they've done, or showing how many people use ones packages, yet another discussion started in another thread, turns into a self motivating factor. People will try to "better themselves". I think as soon as the system moves toward comparison to others with top 10 lists, points, or what not it turns into an "if - then" system. I believe "if - then" systems miss the mark and probably are more demotivating for a large number of people rather than being motivating.
I agree.
It can be tricky, though, to move people from a mindset of it being a zero-sum game. I think that's where the comparison becomes a problem -if it's "I can close more bugs than Robert does," then it becomes a destructive zero-sum game. The motivator needs to not only be personal, but it needs to be reflected as a "team" (or "project") goal. That might mean, for example, comparing the project itself to past performance - closing a higher percentage of open bugs, having a lower number of bugs at the 3, 6, 9, and 12 month marks, or something like that. Tracking community involvement as a part of overall project participation, and having the goal, for example, of an increase in participation across the project.
If it becomes a competition between Jim and Robert taking ownership of bugs that both can contribute to the solution of (but working on independently rather than jointly), then the project loses, because the expertise isn't used effectively. Assuming, of course, that there are bugs that Jim and Robert might collaborate on together to resolve (probably unlikely, since I don't consider myself a developer or coder). ;)
I think there is a mis-match between what we (Henne, myself and others) are trying to achieve and what you (and Robert and others) seem to read into it.
But then recognizing major issues that have been resolved and by whom - in the context of the overall project - that might have value. Something like a list of collaborators in the release notes, or acknowledgment of the contributions of those who made the release possible.
Exactly. In every Free Software project, credit where it is due (and the respect of your peers) plays a huge role. So does seeing the impact of what you do. While there are many different reasons why people contribute, these two are shared by at least a majority of our contributors. That is what this is about: making visible what impact your work has (eg show the number of users of packages on OBS) and allowing others to see what you do (eg show packages you maintain on your profile).
From there on, we can do more elaborate things with this information, like calculate an activity metric or make a top-ten of bugfixers. Or not. That is something we can decide in a later stage, and even experiment with and get rid off if it doesn't work.
Also, please realize that motivation differs between people. Some do find a top-ten kind'a cool, others don't. The fact that you might not does not mean it does have no value for others. For a short spell AJ and myself put weekly contributor stats to Factory on news.o.o and we heard back from several people that they found it cool to get in there. I'm not saying it makes a huge difference, but why not recognize and motivate those who do appreciate this? Cheers, Jos
Jim