[REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Dennis E. Hamilton-2
From an AOO PMC Member,

I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence.

This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator.
 
OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC

This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender.

        2015 | Private List Messages
   thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All

      Totals  1145  182     31  1358
     Senders    22   23     23    68
  Per sender  52.0  7.9    1.3  20.0
   (average)
     Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4

Of all the messages sent,

  84% are by members of the PMC,
  16% are by other ASF participants, and
  17% are by others.

The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@.

For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year,

  49% of the messages are from the three
      PMC members who were the most vocal
      in the studied period.
  75% of the messages are from the seven
      most vocal.  
  91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
      22 PMC members that posted.

I confess to being one of those top three posters.


NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION

A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied

     168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
         about 0.8 new topics per day.
           The variance of 17 from the first tally
         is negligible and will not be corrected.
         The raw data is available for auditing
         by the PMC.  

     8.0 is the average number of messages on a
         single subject

      5% is the portion of the overall messages
         used in the longest thread, one with
         73 messages

     50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
         discussion threads.  The shortest thread
         in that group has 18 messages.

     75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
         discussions.  The shortest threads in
         that group have 8 messages.

     90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
         discussions (i.e., half of the
         threads).  The shortest threads in
         that group have 4 messages each.  

     The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
     having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.

This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.

        [end of report]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Dennis E. Hamilton-2
With a correction already,

Of all the messages sent,

  84.3% are by members of the PMC,
  13.4% are by other ASF participants, and
   2.3% are by others.

[The extra decimals are simply to achieve a confirmable total of 100%, precision not so much.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 12:09
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

From an AOO PMC Member,

I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence.

This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator.
 
OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC

This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender.

        2015 | Private List Messages
   thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All

      Totals  1145  182     31  1358
     Senders    22   23     23    68
  Per sender  52.0  7.9    1.3  20.0
   (average)
     Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4

Of all the messages sent,

  84% are by members of the PMC,
  16% are by other ASF participants, and
  17% are by others.

The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@.

For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year,

  49% of the messages are from the three
      PMC members who were the most vocal
      in the studied period.
  75% of the messages are from the seven
      most vocal.  
  91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
      22 PMC members that posted.

I confess to being one of those top three posters.


NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION

A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied

     168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
         about 0.8 new topics per day.
           The variance of 17 from the first tally
         is negligible and will not be corrected.
         The raw data is available for auditing
         by the PMC.  

     8.0 is the average number of messages on a
         single subject

      5% is the portion of the overall messages
         used in the longest thread, one with
         73 messages

     50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
         discussion threads.  The shortest thread
         in that group has 18 messages.

     75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
         discussions.  The shortest threads in
         that group have 8 messages.

     90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
         discussions (i.e., half of the
         threads).  The shortest threads in
         that group have 4 messages each.  

     The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
     having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.

This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.

        [end of report]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Phillip Rhodes
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton-2
So what, if anything, should we take away from this?  My (completely
superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic
on the "private" list.  But maybe not.  Anyway, is the idea here that there
should be less traffic on that list? More? The same?

I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little
out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued
with this.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> From an AOO PMC Member,
>
> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on
> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and
> noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this
> level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message content
> and even the topics must be held in confidence.
>
> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current
> state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community
> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply
> should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the course
> of the year may provide an useful indicator.
>
> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC
>
> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through
> July, 2015, by role of the sender.
>
>         2015 | Private List Messages
>    thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All
>
>       Totals  1145  182     31  1358
>      Senders    22   23     23    68
>   Per sender  52.0  7.9    1.3  20.0
>    (average)
>      Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4
>
> Of all the messages sent,
>
>   84% are by members of the PMC,
>   16% are by other ASF participants, and
>   17% are by others.
>
> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of
> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private
> list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache
> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the
> PMC via private@.
>
> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so
> far this year,
>
>   49% of the messages are from the three
>       PMC members who were the most vocal
>       in the studied period.
>   75% of the messages are from the seven
>       most vocal.
>   91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
>       22 PMC members that posted.
>
> I confess to being one of those top three posters.
>
>
> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
>
> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied
>
>      168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
>          about 0.8 new topics per day.
>            The variance of 17 from the first tally
>          is negligible and will not be corrected.
>          The raw data is available for auditing
>          by the PMC.
>
>      8.0 is the average number of messages on a
>          single subject
>
>       5% is the portion of the overall messages
>          used in the longest thread, one with
>          73 messages
>
>      50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
>          discussion threads.  The shortest thread
>          in that group has 18 messages.
>
>      75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
>          discussions.  The shortest threads in
>          that group have 8 messages.
>
>      90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
>          discussions (i.e., half of the
>          threads).  The shortest threads in
>          that group have 4 messages each.
>
>      The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
>      having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.
>
> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and
> any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.
>
>         [end of report]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Dennis E. Hamilton-2
I've heard that it is a whole lot and much more that the PMC policies warrant.

I dug into this to find out exactly what "a whole lot" is and whether it is a way to demonstrate, without breaching confidentiality, when activity more aligned with the policy is reached over time.

Thanks for your question and welcome back, Phil.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:59
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

So what, if anything, should we take away from this?  My (completely
superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic
on the "private" list.  But maybe not.  Anyway, is the idea here that there
should be less traffic on that list? More? The same?

I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little
out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued
with this.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> From an AOO PMC Member,
>
> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on
> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and
> noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this
> level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message content
> and even the topics must be held in confidence.
>
> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current
> state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community
> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply
> should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the course
> of the year may provide an useful indicator.
>
> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC
>
> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through
> July, 2015, by role of the sender.
>
>         2015 | Private List Messages
>    thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All
>
>       Totals  1145  182     31  1358
>      Senders    22   23     23    68
>   Per sender  52.0  7.9    1.3  20.0
>    (average)
>      Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4
>
> Of all the messages sent,
>
>   84% are by members of the PMC,
>   16% are by other ASF participants, and
>   17% are by others.
>
> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of
> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private
> list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache
> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the
> PMC via private@.
>
> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so
> far this year,
>
>   49% of the messages are from the three
>       PMC members who were the most vocal
>       in the studied period.
>   75% of the messages are from the seven
>       most vocal.
>   91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
>       22 PMC members that posted.
>
> I confess to being one of those top three posters.
>
>
> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
>
> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied
>
>      168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
>          about 0.8 new topics per day.
>            The variance of 17 from the first tally
>          is negligible and will not be corrected.
>          The raw data is available for auditing
>          by the PMC.
>
>      8.0 is the average number of messages on a
>          single subject
>
>       5% is the portion of the overall messages
>          used in the longest thread, one with
>          73 messages
>
>      50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
>          discussion threads.  The shortest thread
>          in that group has 18 messages.
>
>      75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
>          discussions.  The shortest threads in
>          that group have 8 messages.
>
>      90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
>          discussions (i.e., half of the
>          threads).  The shortest threads in
>          that group have 4 messages each.
>
>      The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
>      having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.
>
> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and
> any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.
>
>         [end of report]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Phillip Rhodes
In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list.

I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is
currently and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails.

Marcus



Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes:

> So what, if anything, should we take away from this?  My (completely
> superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic
> on the "private" list.  But maybe not.  Anyway, is the idea here that there
> should be less traffic on that list? More? The same?
>
> I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little
> out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued
> with this.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>  From an AOO PMC Member,
>>
>> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on
>> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and
>> noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this
>> level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message content
>> and even the topics must be held in confidence.
>>
>> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current
>> state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community
>> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply
>> should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the course
>> of the year may provide an useful indicator.
>>
>> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC
>>
>> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through
>> July, 2015, by role of the sender.
>>
>>          2015 | Private List Messages
>>     thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All
>>
>>        Totals  1145  182     31  1358
>>       Senders    22   23     23    68
>>    Per sender  52.0  7.9    1.3  20.0
>>     (average)
>>       Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4
>>
>> Of all the messages sent,
>>
>>    84% are by members of the PMC,
>>    16% are by other ASF participants, and
>>    17% are by others.
>>
>> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of
>> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private
>> list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache
>> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the
>> PMC via private@.
>>
>> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so
>> far this year,
>>
>>    49% of the messages are from the three
>>        PMC members who were the most vocal
>>        in the studied period.
>>    75% of the messages are from the seven
>>        most vocal.
>>    91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
>>        22 PMC members that posted.
>>
>> I confess to being one of those top three posters.
>>
>>
>> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
>>
>> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied
>>
>>       168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
>>           about 0.8 new topics per day.
>>             The variance of 17 from the first tally
>>           is negligible and will not be corrected.
>>           The raw data is available for auditing
>>           by the PMC.
>>
>>       8.0 is the average number of messages on a
>>           single subject
>>
>>        5% is the portion of the overall messages
>>           used in the longest thread, one with
>>           73 messages
>>
>>       50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
>>           discussion threads.  The shortest thread
>>           in that group has 18 messages.
>>
>>       75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
>>           discussions.  The shortest threads in
>>           that group have 8 messages.
>>
>>       90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
>>           discussions (i.e., half of the
>>           threads).  The shortest threads in
>>           that group have 4 messages each.
>>
>>       The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
>>       having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.
>>
>> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and
>> any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.
>>
>>          [end of report]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Rich Bowen
I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.
On Aug 29, 2015 02:42, "Marcus" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list.
>
> I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently
> and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>
>> So what, if anything, should we take away from this?  My (completely
>> superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of
>> traffic
>> on the "private" list.  But maybe not.  Anyway, is the idea here that
>> there
>> should be less traffic on that list? More? The same?
>>
>> I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little
>> out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me
>> intrigued
>> with this.
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  From an AOO PMC Member,
>>>
>>> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on
>>> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and
>>> noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this
>>> level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message
>>> content
>>> and even the topics must be held in confidence.
>>>
>>> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current
>>> state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community
>>> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply
>>> should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the
>>> course
>>> of the year may provide an useful indicator.
>>>
>>> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC
>>>
>>> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through
>>> July, 2015, by role of the sender.
>>>
>>>          2015 | Private List Messages
>>>     thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All
>>>
>>>        Totals  1145  182     31  1358
>>>       Senders    22   23     23    68
>>>    Per sender  52.0 7.9 1.3 20.0
>>>     (average)
>>>       Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4
>>>
>>> Of all the messages sent,
>>>
>>>    84% are by members of the PMC,
>>>    16% are by other ASF participants, and
>>>    17% are by others.
>>>
>>> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers
>>> of
>>> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private
>>> list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache
>>> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to
>>> the
>>> PMC via private@.
>>>
>>> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so
>>> far this year,
>>>
>>>    49% of the messages are from the three
>>>        PMC members who were the most vocal
>>>        in the studied period.
>>>    75% of the messages are from the seven
>>>        most vocal.
>>>    91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
>>>        22 PMC members that posted.
>>>
>>> I confess to being one of those top three posters.
>>>
>>>
>>> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
>>>
>>> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied
>>>
>>>       168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
>>>           about 0.8 new topics per day.
>>>             The variance of 17 from the first tally
>>>           is negligible and will not be corrected.
>>>           The raw data is available for auditing
>>>           by the PMC.
>>>
>>>       8.0 is the average number of messages on a
>>>           single subject
>>>
>>>        5% is the portion of the overall messages
>>>           used in the longest thread, one with
>>>           73 messages
>>>
>>>       50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
>>>           discussion threads.  The shortest thread
>>>           in that group has 18 messages.
>>>
>>>       75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
>>>           discussions.  The shortest threads in
>>>           that group have 8 messages.
>>>
>>>       90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
>>>           discussions (i.e., half of the
>>>           threads).  The shortest threads in
>>>           that group have 4 messages each.
>>>
>>>       The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
>>>       having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.
>>>
>>> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and
>>> any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.
>>>
>>>          [end of report]
>>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Phil Steitz


On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.

I would discourage any reasoning based on aggregate message counts.
Every +1 on a PMC member VOTE counts as a message, for example.  The
thing to look carefully at is what is being discussed on the private
list.  A lot of discussion bearing on topics important to the
direction of the project is bad, bad, bad.  Healthy projects have
quiet private@ lists because pretty much everything they need to
talk about they can and do talk about on the public lists.  But
committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal
or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic
spikes when they do.  So I would not draw conclusions or do
comparisons based on message counts.  Better to compare what is
actually being discussed.

Phil

> On Aug 29, 2015 02:42, "Marcus" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list.
>>
>> I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently
>> and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>
>>> So what, if anything, should we take away from this?  My (completely
>>> superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of
>>> traffic
>>> on the "private" list.  But maybe not.  Anyway, is the idea here that
>>> there
>>> should be less traffic on that list? More? The same?
>>>
>>> I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little
>>> out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me
>>> intrigued
>>> with this.
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  From an AOO PMC Member,
>>>> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on
>>>> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and
>>>> noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this
>>>> level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message
>>>> content
>>>> and even the topics must be held in confidence.
>>>>
>>>> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current
>>>> state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community
>>>> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply
>>>> should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the
>>>> course
>>>> of the year may provide an useful indicator.
>>>>
>>>> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC
>>>>
>>>> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through
>>>> July, 2015, by role of the sender.
>>>>
>>>>          2015 | Private List Messages
>>>>     thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All
>>>>
>>>>        Totals  1145  182     31  1358
>>>>       Senders    22   23     23    68
>>>>    Per sender  52.0 7.9 1.3 20.0
>>>>     (average)
>>>>       Per day   5.4  0.9    0.1   6.4
>>>>
>>>> Of all the messages sent,
>>>>
>>>>    84% are by members of the PMC,
>>>>    16% are by other ASF participants, and
>>>>    17% are by others.
>>>>
>>>> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers
>>>> of
>>>> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private
>>>> list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache
>>>> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to
>>>> the
>>>> PMC via private@.
>>>>
>>>> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so
>>>> far this year,
>>>>
>>>>    49% of the messages are from the three
>>>>        PMC members who were the most vocal
>>>>        in the studied period.
>>>>    75% of the messages are from the seven
>>>>        most vocal.
>>>>    91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
>>>>        22 PMC members that posted.
>>>>
>>>> I confess to being one of those top three posters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
>>>>
>>>> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied
>>>>
>>>>       168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
>>>>           about 0.8 new topics per day.
>>>>             The variance of 17 from the first tally
>>>>           is negligible and will not be corrected.
>>>>           The raw data is available for auditing
>>>>           by the PMC.
>>>>
>>>>       8.0 is the average number of messages on a
>>>>           single subject
>>>>
>>>>        5% is the portion of the overall messages
>>>>           used in the longest thread, one with
>>>>           73 messages
>>>>
>>>>       50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
>>>>           discussion threads.  The shortest thread
>>>>           in that group has 18 messages.
>>>>
>>>>       75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
>>>>           discussions.  The shortest threads in
>>>>           that group have 8 messages.
>>>>
>>>>       90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
>>>>           discussions (i.e., half of the
>>>>           threads).  The shortest threads in
>>>>           that group have 4 messages each.
>>>>
>>>>       The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
>>>>       having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.
>>>>
>>>> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and
>>>> any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.
>>>>
>>>>          [end of report]
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Rich Bowen
On Aug 29, 2015 12:21, "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.
>
> I would discourage any reasoning based on aggregate message counts.
> Every +1 on a PMC member VOTE counts as a message, for example.  The
> thing to look carefully at is what is being discussed on the private
> list.  A lot of discussion bearing on topics important to the
> direction of the project is bad, bad, bad.  Healthy projects have
> quiet private@ lists because pretty much everything they need to
> talk about they can and do talk about on the public lists.  But
> committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal
> or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic
> spikes when they do.  So I would not draw conclusions or do
> comparisons based on message counts.  Better to compare what is
> actually being discussed.

Absolutely. And I completely agree that aoo has too much traffic on private@.
I'd just really like to see if it's as skewed as I perceive it is,
statistically speaking.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Dennis E. Hamilton-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
Good idea, Phil

Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to [VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible.  I will look into that as a refinement in future reports.  (It will also be helpful if the practices for tagging mail threads are followed consistently.)

It should be pretty easy to distinguish posts that are in scope for a PMC and those that are not, without revealing anything posted with an expectation of privacy.

Rich,

I have no means to produce comparisons with other projects and it is out of scope for me here.  Maybe other projects might undertake it just to satisfy themselves that their activity is as confined as it is thought to be.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 09:21
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July



On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.

[ ... ] But
committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal
or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic
spikes when they do.  So I would not draw conclusions or do
comparisons based on message counts.  Better to compare what is
actually being discussed.

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Andrea Pescetti-2
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to
> [VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible.  I will look into
> that as a refinement in future reports.

I would save you some hours and rely on easy indicators and on a clear
goal: full transparency (let me say, once again, that private traffic
does not contain any important discussions or decisions, but still I
appreciate that we commit to showing it).

So, from my mailbox data (and they might be slightly imprecise but we do
not want absolute precision here): the private list accounts for 20% of
the traffic of English OpenOffice lists in the period considered (1
January to 31 July 2015). I obviously excluded the issues@ and commits@
list, and I excluded all native-language lists.

20% is high. OK, we had three Chair elections so far in 2015, PMC
additions and several committer invitations; and the press and trademark
inquiries are numerous. But still 20% is high.

Thank you Dennis for the numbers, and now the focus should be on how we
can improve them and explain them.

Improve: we can aim at reducing that number to be below 20%, and to keep
your other absolute numbers under control too (while other indicators,
such as the thread length, do not add value and add work, and are not
meaningful to me at least).

Explain: I would appreciate to see a paragraph in the quarterly report
about how (not numbers: topics) the private list was used in the
previous reporting period (so: October 2015 Report contains a report
about private activity in April-May-June). Five lines, saying what was
discussed there, without revealing any specific details; and saying
whether action was taken to move interesting conversations to the dev
list (which happens quite often). I suspect that this is more
interesting, to the community and the Board, than having better numbers
without context.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Dave Fisher
We could reduce private traffic if we discussed the policy for trademarks in public. The community can help write a clear policy statement with real and fictional examples. This would serve the community by reducing private inquiries to unusual cases not previously considered or unclearly explained.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 29, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to
>> [VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible.  I will look into
>> that as a refinement in future reports.
>
> I would save you some hours and rely on easy indicators and on a clear goal: full transparency (let me say, once again, that private traffic does not contain any important discussions or decisions, but still I appreciate that we commit to showing it).
>
> So, from my mailbox data (and they might be slightly imprecise but we do not want absolute precision here): the private list accounts for 20% of the traffic of English OpenOffice lists in the period considered (1 January to 31 July 2015). I obviously excluded the issues@ and commits@ list, and I excluded all native-language lists.
>
> 20% is high. OK, we had three Chair elections so far in 2015, PMC additions and several committer invitations; and the press and trademark inquiries are numerous. But still 20% is high.
>
> Thank you Dennis for the numbers, and now the focus should be on how we can improve them and explain them.
>
> Improve: we can aim at reducing that number to be below 20%, and to keep your other absolute numbers under control too (while other indicators, such as the thread length, do not add value and add work, and are not meaningful to me at least).
>
> Explain: I would appreciate to see a paragraph in the quarterly report about how (not numbers: topics) the private list was used in the previous reporting period (so: October 2015 Report contains a report about private activity in April-May-June). Five lines, saying what was discussed there, without revealing any specific details; and saying whether action was taken to move interesting conversations to the dev list (which happens quite often). I suspect that this is more interesting, to the community and the Board, than having better numbers without context.
>
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Rich Bowen
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton-2
On Aug 29, 2015 14:02, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Rich,
>
> I have no means to produce comparisons with other projects and it is out
of scope for me here.  Maybe other projects might undertake it just to
satisfy themselves that their activity is as confined as it is thought to
be.
>

Or, possibly someone from infra that is fascinated with statistics could
whip something up as part of the reporter tool. ;)

No, it was just an idle "what if".