[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [polarsys-iwg] Maturity Assessment meeting minutes
|
Hiho Jesus,
Le 02/12/2014 18:50, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona a écrit :
Any problem if I share the link to the survey publicly? (I mean, eg, on
Twitter). Or do you prefer some more focused answers?
No problem at all, that would help disseminate the survey. And I guess
that anyone willing to answer this already has some focus on the
subject, so the wider the dissemination is, the better.
Cheers,
--
boris
Saludos,
Jesus.
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 11:10 +0100, Boris Baldassari wrote:
Hiho,
Thank you for joining the Maturity Assessment meeting. Here are a few
notes about what was said, and the next steps.
# Next steps
* Take the survey! => http://goo.gl/forms/gwemY0DRQI
It will run until the 12th of December. It is important to have as much
feedback as possible, so please do not hesitate to share it with your
colleagues. It's quick and helpful.
* Monday, the 15th of December, 4pm UTC: Analysis of the review and
freezing of the features for the first version of the PMM.
I'll send the phone numbers for the conf as a separate email.
# Scales
A series of scales has been proposed. Their definition depends on the
sources of data, so we explained the process for each of them:
http://dashboard.castalia.camp/documentation/scales.html
As an example we have:
Number of ITS updates (256) => Scale => 4 out of 5 (quite good)
# Aggregation of metrics
We have now a mechanism to aggregate values, from normalised metrics to
concepts and quality attributes. Weights can be assigned to each node to
increase or decrease their importance in the final mark, by default all
nodes are equally important. The mean is used for the aggregation.
The quality model has also been improved to visualise it easily.
# Remarks from participants
The forums or nntp are not being analysed for now, which means that we
miss the activity, diversity etc. for projects that do not use mailing
lists.
We should differentiate missing data and null values, to measure the
confidence in the metric. Needs to be further discussed.
Please do not hesitate to ask questions, send comments, etc.
Have a great week,
--
Boris
