Replies: 2 comments
-
|
Such an interesting place... Selfishly, I wish that for a given project, somehow I could provide an API or private way for you to understand what I think about a given project, or, at least have some kind of config-as-code file to help indicate who "core" maintainers are. If I think about the Microsoft example, not all of our employees publicize their membership in the Microsoft official organization. We ask that people comply with our company social media policies, and indicate clearly they work at Microsoft, but that can take many forms:
So I have a list of 50,000+ people at my company who have chosen to tell us who they are on GitHub; however, it's not exactly a list we could make public, and it's changing all the time. So if an employee contributed to a project 5 years ago, and since has left for a competitor, I think that contribution at the time was probably a company/project contributor, and now, no longer such a contribution... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
To me this is about enabling attestation of contributions. Of which external contributors might be
I think the CHAOSS metric more closely associated with this would be: https://chaoss.community/kb/metric-contribution-attribution/ The audiences who care about each would be
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi all, I wanted to drop an update here and pose a question to you.
First off, we're hard at work adding the number one most requested metric to the dashboard: pull requests! Specifically, we're going to be able to show the number of open vs closed pull requests over time as well as how many ended up merged vs being closed without merge. Adding this involves both crunching the numbers on the back end and displaying some new visualizations but we plan to get it out before the quarter's up (end of march).
In parallel with that work, we're looking into what it'll take to open up the dashboard to more orgs and ease the onboarding experience. An improvement to the data layer shipped this week (Jan 24) that will greatly improve the performance for large orgs - especially ones who've reported their graphs not loading because they timed out.
Looking forward, one impediment the engineers have identified is the complexity of the query behind the "External Contributors" metric. For background, right now this presents repo activity as a percentage, by users who are members of the GitHub Organization that owns the repository vs those who have write access but are not members. The idea was to align with the CHAOSS Project 'contributors' metric, where an increasing number of non-member contributors can indicate a healthy, growing community of new users.
But we've already heard some feedback that our implementation of this metric doesn't align with how some projects think about 'core' vs 'external' contributors, because organization membership isn't the domain boundary; instead, it's commit right to the repository. So the notion that 'external contributors' is not especially useful, plus imposes scaling limitations as implemented, makes me wonder whether we'd be losing anything of value by dropping it.
What do you think? Is it important to you, and if so, what do you use it for? Is there another metric we should be using instead? We'd love your input.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions