Open Stack

On 11/04/2016 5:10 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> gordon chung wrote:
>> On 08/04/2016 1:26 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>> Steve pointed out to a problem in Stackalytics:
>>> https://twitter.com/stevebot/status/718185667709267969
>>>
>>> It's pretty clear what's happening if you look here:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:openstack-infra%2540lists.openstack.org+status:open
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the drastic step (i'd like to avoid):
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/303545/
>>>
>>
>> is it actually affecting anything in the community aside from the
>> reviews being useless. aside from the 'diversity' tags in governance,
>> does anything else use stackalytics?
>
> Although I feel like there has been less of that over the last few
> releases, Stackalytics is where the press (and some companies) point to
> to find out who the "#1 OpenStack company" is, or what a particular
> company rank is in the contributions list.
>
> On http://www.openstack.org/software/mitaka/ you can click "Contributor
> stats" which points to: http://stackalytics.com/?release=mitaka -- and
> by default this shows Reviews stats (which are the easiest to game).
>
> Maybe it's time to revert back to "Commits" as the default stat shown on
> Stackalytics ? At least for a while ?
>
> The only protection against metrics being gamed is to change them often
> enough... I'm also a big fan of original retrospective analysis, where
> you look at past data and find interesting metrics (rather than
> predefine a metric for future data and hope nobody will game it).
>

commits is probably a better stat to show participation but that said, 
there will always be ways to game stats. if a company (or the 
foundation) uses Stackalytics to promote their brand, there will always 
be ways for them to be #1 at something, any stat can be skewed in any 
way you want, that's the basic idea of marketing.

i still don't think this is a concern until it starts affecting our 
(developers') workflow. if an individual's random +1 vote bothers you, 
call them out on it. if this becomes a swarm of random +1s where it 
starts negatively affecting your review process, then maybe we need more 
aggressive measures.

cheers,

-- 
gord