Warren Togami wrote:
I suspect a points system would be good, but we could perhaps improve on
this...
- Points in itself is not a hard indicator of merit or promotion
eligibility, just a strong hint of the contributor's value to the project.
- Earning points is logarithmic. You shouldn't earn a super high score
by doing an inordinate amount of one thing. Points should perhaps
reward doing different things more than plenty of the same thing.
- Points shouldn't be just for Bugzilla activity, there other potential
sources.
- Points might accrue for consistent activity, and gradually fall if you
stop participating. (Note, points have no relation with access levels,
so people who participate without care for points to maintain only
specific packages don't need to care about maintaining consistent
activity.)
Remember this stuff is for human interpretation. So basing just on
bugzilla is fine; high points means "does a lot of bugzilla stuff."
Having also "years as fedora contributor" or "number of packages owned"
would also be easy to understand, but to me probably easier if they are
separate metrics.
Any kind of complex formula and nobody knows what the number means.
But really, define the problem... for me bugzilla points are so people
jumping into the community can tell who is just a drive-by commentator
and who is a contributor. They seem to work fine for that.
I don't see why you'd want some single rank metric to measure someone's
global Fedora coolness.
Havoc
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
