Open Stack

I agree with Roland. The numbers do say something - the question is 
exactly what.

On the surface it seems that the responders are not as happy as one 
might think with OpenStack.

I am not saying that is true, not saying that this is accurate - but I 
think it is worthwhile understanding why these numbers changed. Was it 
the audience size, something else, but something the foundation and the 
community would like understand.

My 0.02 Shekels.

On 11/17/15 02:04, Roland Chan wrote:
> On 17 November 2015 at 11:24, Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org 
> <mailto:stefano at openstack.org>>wrote:
>
>     On 11/16/2015 03:50 PM, Roland Chan wrote:
>     > I'm requesting further analysis of the user survey data in order to
>     > determine what factors maybe contributing to the deterioriation
>     of the
>     > NPS results over the last two surveys.
>
>     This is one of the cases where I'm not particularly concerned in the
>     change that score but in its absolute value: the latest NPS in the
>     latest edition could probably be considered a new base point
>     instead of
>     a down trend because the sample size of the survey has changed so
>     dramatically.
>
>
> ​ ​Yes it could. The detractor numbers from the last survey alone 
> still warrant investigation in my opinion.
>
> ​ I'm not considering the change as a trend yet, but clearly something 
> happened, and ignoring it would be foolhardy. We could be looking at 
> anything from a significant change in user sentiment to an innocuous 
> mistake in the execution of the survey process. Or anything in between.
>
> Whatever it is, finding out sooner rather than later would be 
> beneficial, particularly if we are planning to take action based on 
> the results at some point.
>
>     Also, I'm not sure how exactly valuable the NPS score is for the thing
>     that is called 'openstack' in the context of the survey: is that the
>     upstream code? the packages from vendors? the old releases
>     unmaintained?
>     neutron? devstack? How valuable is really that number?
>
>
> ​ ​It's the user experience. The detail comes from further 
> investigation. I imagine that the survey data contains some of this 
> information, hence the request for analysis.
> ​
> ​ Investigation from other angles, such as the Diversity working 
> group, has suggested that tools, people and process are all sources of 
> dissatisfaction.
>
>
>     > I don't know what form the data for the last two user surveys
>     is, but if
>     > it's in surveymonkey,
>
>     it's not in surveymonkey, it's in a custom-built tool managed by the
>     Foundation. Access to the data is restricted to very few individuals
>     because of its super-sensitive content.
>
>
> ​ OK. Then we need to determine whether the people with access are 
> able to perform the analysis or whether the data can be anonymised 
> and/or aggregated sufficiently to allow analysis outside of that group.
>
> That will tell us if analysis is feasible.
>
>     > we had some good results using their built in
>     > toolset (credit to Lauren for that) with the Diversity survey
>     results.
>
>     Speaking of which, I heard rumors that the results were published
>     at the
>     Board meeting in Tokyo but I haven't seen that presentation made
>     public
>     yet. Did I miss the public announcement?
>
>
> ​There wasn't an announcement per se. The presentation is in the board 
> agenda:
>
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/26Oct2015BoardMeeting
>
> Minutes of the meeting don't seem to be out yet, but it wasn't 
> confidential, so it will be public.
>
> ​ Roland​
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee

-- 
Best Regards,
Maish Saidel-Keesing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20151117/b86709a3/attachment.html>