[Osmf-talk] Seeking feedback and interest in the OSMF Engineering Working Group

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 15:40:10 UTC 2021


On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 23:29, Michal Migurski <mike at teczno.com> wrote:

> Our software projects so far have not gained contributors and maintainers over time, and in fact the opposite has happened. iD no longer has Bryan or Quincy contributing to its development. The team behind the API & website has been reduced to you and Tom for many years. We are lucky to have had dedicated and skilled people like yourself, but the board has not chosen to prioritize or support a conducive environment for growing the community of engineers. This story has been consistent over the past five years and should be cause for alarm for the majority of community members who prioritized stability in the recent survey.

I feel I should point out that I wasn't even a maintainer 5 years ago!
So perhaps the story is the same, but the actual situation does
change, and so I reiterate my request that you double-check with the
people involved before drawing any more conclusions based on incorrect
data.

Another example is including the JOSM pull request data in your
analysis, despite them not using github for development! That would
skew your analysis somewhat. Again, it's something that could easily
have been caught before you published your charts and targets.

> Instead I am proposing a way for the board to set a goal for the EWG using readily-available public data. We’ll know the working group is successful when we see a movement in the contribution and maintenance patterns on core repos.

Having worked in various metrics-driven organisations, I'm deeply
cautious about the choosing of targets. And I'm still deeply skeptical
of these "contribution and maintenance patterns" that you have chosen.
If the board starts measuring progress on those charts and your stated
goals, then there are two simple ways we can "improve" those outcomes
- simply close community pull requests immediately, and arbitrarily
decline merging maintainer PRs. That's a step backwards for everyone
involved, but would meet those defined goals.

So my hope is that you set those charts and goals aside, and
reconsider your approach.

Thanks,
Andy



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list