On 02/11/2014 10:10 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I would really like any ideas on how we could measure better. It's a hard problem. The things we can easily count (like IP connections) don't really tell us much anyway. What kind of things do you think we should measure, and how should we do it?
Ok so here is were my thought process differs from those driving the WG and the .next effort, fesco, board etc.
From my perspective people are looking at this entirely wrong since as I see it our first and foremost target audience for the project is the individual that *contributes back* and as such we should not be looking into "number of downloads" or "IP connections" we should be monitoring how many people join/leave our project and *contribute back*.
That is our true success/failure health rate, as it is for basically every project and since the more people we have contributing back releng/qa/docs/design/marketing/packaging etc. The better we are at sustaining ourselves as an distribution and the better we are at sustaining ourselves, the better we are at delivering feedback back upstream. The better we are at delivering feedback upstream the greater the reward when the result from that feedback travels back downstream to us.
This is one of the fundamental reason why I'm against elevating one product over another since we as an project loose contributors, the individuals that matter the most to us when we are doing that and the only place we are doing that and have been doing that is with the default desktop and now single output from the workstation WG as opposed to a process/standards those desktop environments have to meet to become an "official" workstation product just like a component that wants a place in a specific server role.
Bottom line our target audience are reachers not leechers JBG -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
