[openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Hi!
Each quarter, Qingye Jiang, an employee of Eucalyptus, publishes a report of the community and contribution metrics of OpenStack, OpenNebula, Eucalyptus, and CloudStack. He has just published his report for Y13Q2
It’s in Chinese, but he typically publishes an English translation a few days later.
Short summary of OpenStack’s position:
We are still in the lead and accelerating.
However, CloudStack is also accelerating and growing fast.
We are far and away best at bringing in new contributors.
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are
https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/
https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
Share and enjoy.
..m
Mark Atwood mark.atwood@hp.com Director of Open Source Engagement for HP Cloud Services M +1-206-473-7118
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) : http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=CloudStack&... ________________________________ From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To: user-committee@lists.openstack.org; marketing@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Hi!
Each quarter, Qingye Jiang, an employee of Eucalyptus, publishes a report of the community and contribution metrics of OpenStack, OpenNebula, Eucalyptus, and CloudStack. He has just published his report for Y13Q2
It’s in Chinese, but he typically publishes an English translation a few days later.
Short summary of OpenStack’s position: We are still in the lead and accelerating. However, CloudStack is also accelerating and growing fast. We are far and away best at bringing in new contributors.
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
Share and enjoy.
..m
Mark Atwood mark.atwood@hp.com Director of Open Source Engagement for HP Cloud Services M +1-206-473-7118
On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef
Here is the English report from my friend Qingye: http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3321 And I will give him the feedback.
2013/7/4 Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org
On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
The oslo project is also missed off for the git statistics.
Is there an easy way to capture the IRC activity and trends ?
Tim
From: Yujie Du [mailto:duyujie.dyj@gmail.com] Sent: 04 July 2013 13:29 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: community@lists.openstack.org; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; Gordon, Joe Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Here is the English report from my friend Qingye: http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3321 And I will give him the feedback.
2013/7/4 Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
I'd also suggest that devstack could be included in the statistics for OpenStack (devcloud, the equivalent for cloudstack, is buried in the cloudstack.git repository).
While the actual code analysis is great, I wonder if the analysis could also include the documentation (and wiki?) as that's perhaps even more of a critical measure?
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch] Sent: 04 July 2013 12:57 To: Yujie Du; Stefano Maffulli Cc: Gordon, Joe; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
The oslo project is also missed off for the git statistics.
Is there an easy way to capture the IRC activity and trends ?
Tim
From: Yujie Du [mailto:duyujie.dyj@gmail.com] Sent: 04 July 2013 13:29 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: community@lists.openstack.org; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; Gordon, Joe Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Here is the English report from my friend Qingye: http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3321 And I will give him the feedback.
2013/7/4 Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
Hi Qingye,
Thanks for you good work on the community reports! It's very useful for us to see the community activities.Just as we discussed on Weibo, there are some suggestions about the statistics on OpenStack. I think it will be better to let you know what we are taking about.
Thanks, Ben
2013/7/4 Bob Ball bob.ball@citrix.com
I'd also suggest that devstack could be included in the statistics for OpenStack (devcloud, the equivalent for cloudstack, is buried in the cloudstack.git repository).
While the actual code analysis is great, I wonder if the analysis could also include the documentation (and wiki?) as that's perhaps even more of a critical measure?
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch] Sent: 04 July 2013 12:57 To: Yujie Du; Stefano Maffulli Cc: Gordon, Joe; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
The oslo project is also missed off for the git statistics.
Is there an easy way to capture the IRC activity and trends ?
Tim
From: Yujie Du [mailto:duyujie.dyj@gmail.com] Sent: 04 July 2013 13:29 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: community@lists.openstack.org; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; Gordon, Joe Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Here is the English report from my friend Qingye: http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3321 And I will give him the feedback.
2013/7/4 Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
-- --Ben Trystack.cn By Stacker, for Stacker! Blog: duyujie.org WEIBO: http://weibo.com/u/1716287123 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ben_Duyujie LINKEDIN: cn.linkedin.com/in/duyujie About me: http://about.me/Yujie.Du
Hi Ben,
Thanks a lot for the sharing. This is in deed a great discussion. As you know, I am always looking for ways to improve this quarterly analysis. Let's see how we can make it better together.
Best regards,
-- Qingye Jiang (John) Senior Member, IEEE qjiang@ieee.org
在 2013-7-4，下午10:02，Yujie Du duyujie.dyj@gmail.com 写道：
Hi Qingye,
Thanks for you good work on the community reports! It's very useful for us to see the community activities.Just as we discussed on Weibo, there are some suggestions about the statistics on OpenStack. I think it will be better to let you know what we are taking about.
Thanks, Ben
2013/7/4 Bob Ball bob.ball@citrix.com I'd also suggest that devstack could be included in the statistics for OpenStack (devcloud, the equivalent for cloudstack, is buried in the cloudstack.git repository).
While the actual code analysis is great, I wonder if the analysis could also include the documentation (and wiki?) as that's perhaps even more of a critical measure?
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch] Sent: 04 July 2013 12:57 To: Yujie Du; Stefano Maffulli Cc: Gordon, Joe; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
The oslo project is also missed off for the git statistics.
Is there an easy way to capture the IRC activity and trends ?
Tim
From: Yujie Du [mailto:duyujie.dyj@gmail.com] Sent: 04 July 2013 13:29 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: community@lists.openstack.org; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; Gordon, Joe Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Here is the English report from my friend Qingye: http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3321 And I will give him the feedback.
2013/7/4 Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
-- --Ben Trystack.cn By Stacker, for Stacker! Blog: duyujie.org WEIBO: http://weibo.com/u/1716287123 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ben_Duyujie LINKEDIN: cn.linkedin.com/in/duyujie About me: http://about.me/Yujie.Du
-- --Ben Trystack.cn By Stacker, for Stacker!
Blog: duyujie.org WEIBO: http://weibo.com/u/1716287123 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ben_Duyujie LINKEDIN: cn.linkedin.com/in/duyujie About me: http://about.me/Yujie.Du
Stefano, it seems like we're getting a proliferation of "stats and analysis" efforts, including Mirantis's newly launched http://www.stackalytics.com/. Would you be up for spearheading a new OpenStack "program" to coordinate these various efforts? Perhaps rather than struggling with the same data problems in each effort (missing key repos, off-site discussion threads, etc), we could focus on getting a clean set of data, and then letting folks parse and visualize it in unique ways.
--
Joshua McKenty Chief Technology Officer Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. +1 (650) 242-5683 +1 (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com
"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:02 AM, Yujie Du duyujie.dyj@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Qingye,
Thanks for you good work on the community reports! It's very useful for us to see the community activities.Just as we discussed on Weibo, there are some suggestions about the statistics on OpenStack. I think it will be better to let you know what we are taking about.
Thanks, Ben
2013/7/4 Bob Ball bob.ball@citrix.com I'd also suggest that devstack could be included in the statistics for OpenStack (devcloud, the equivalent for cloudstack, is buried in the cloudstack.git repository).
While the actual code analysis is great, I wonder if the analysis could also include the documentation (and wiki?) as that's perhaps even more of a critical measure?
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch] Sent: 04 July 2013 12:57 To: Yujie Du; Stefano Maffulli Cc: Gordon, Joe; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
The oslo project is also missed off for the git statistics.
Is there an easy way to capture the IRC activity and trends ?
Tim
From: Yujie Du [mailto:duyujie.dyj@gmail.com] Sent: 04 July 2013 13:29 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: community@lists.openstack.org; marketing@lists.openstack.org; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; Gordon, Joe Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
Here is the English report from my friend Qingye: http://www.qyjohn.net/?p=3321 And I will give him the feedback.
2013/7/4 Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org On 07/04/2013 11:03 AM, Gordon, Joe wrote:
The git commit numbers look way off, for the reasons you mentioned below.
These numbers are more accurate (at least with regard to OpenStack - AFAIK they mine teh data from github.com/openstack) :
[...]
I think this is a better link, listing Apache CloudStack:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=OpenStack&project_1=Eucalyptus&...
From: Atwood, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:47 AM To:
[...]
The data sources for discussion thread metrics for OpenStack are https://lists.openstack.net/openstack/ https://answers.launchpad.net/openstack/ http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/*/ https://ask.openstack.org/
Is he missing any public discussion forums about OpenStack of import that we should bring to his attention?
I think he's missing a lot of discussions that don't happen on openstack.org. domains, like the discussions on meetup.com, google groups, G+, Facebook group, etc. Some of these stats we don't track either (yet), but we're pushing forward an effort to consolidate these sources and give users a better/easiest way to find peers. For example, we now host mailing lists in non-english languages on lists.openstack.org (at the moment Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish) and we're starting a project for a user group portal that will aggregate things from meetup.com.
His also mines the git repos for quantum, keystone, glance, horizon, swift, cinder, and nova. This misses the contributions by incubation projects, preincubation projects, the infrastructure projects, and client projects.
That's the least solid part of his report. Ohloh does a better job, even if the way OpenStack uses git and github makes numbers less comparable across projects. The lack of source code for the git analysis on ohloh and john's report makes both of them less of a 'reliable source' for quote to me.
/stef
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
-- --Ben Trystack.cn By Stacker, for Stacker! Blog: duyujie.org WEIBO: http://weibo.com/u/1716287123 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ben_Duyujie LINKEDIN: cn.linkedin.com/in/duyujie About me: http://about.me/Yujie.Du
-- --Ben Trystack.cn By Stacker, for Stacker!
Blog: duyujie.org WEIBO: http://weibo.com/u/1716287123 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ben_Duyujie LINKEDIN: cn.linkedin.com/in/duyujie About me: http://about.me/Yujie.Du _______________________________________________ User-committee mailing list User-committee@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
Hi Josh
On Mon 08 Jul 2013 07:42:20 PM CEST, Joshua McKenty wrote:
Stefano, it seems like we're getting a proliferation of "stats and analysis" efforts, including Mirantis's newly launched http://www.stackalytics.com/. Would you be up for spearheading a new OpenStack "program" to coordinate these various efforts?
Sure, I like to think that I'm already half-way there with the Activity Board. Http://activity.openstack.org is the program I run now that wants to be the 'official' way to get useful stats and metrics. "Useful" in this context is data and metrics that are needed to manage the community and the development teams. We don't do comparisons with other projects and we are adding more and more features, sources and datapoints based on the feedback from project managers and users (see the first release of data from gerrit on the dash http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/scr.html). We are working hard to make sure that the data is correct and meaningful for day-to-day consumption, not just for quarterly reports and flashy announcements.
There is also a topic for the openstack-dev mailing list with interesting discussions coming from PTLs and project managers (http://openstack.markmail.org/search/?q=subject%3A%5Bmetrics%5D+list%3Aorg.o... to get an idea of what is discussed there).
I believe Mirantis started their effort before Activity Board was available and stackalytics was born out of their internal need to track lines of code (a metric that many in openstack-dev believe has less priority than other data points currently missing in Activity Board). Qingjye similarly had his own itch to scratch when he started doing the comparison across different projects.
What problem you believe such multitude of reports not coming from the Foundation is creating?
/stef
-- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
I believe that the OpenStack marketing community sees comparisons to other open source cloud frameworks as significant competitive positioning. Accuracy in that data would be valuable to the whole community.
I *know* that a number of OpenStack member companies use their "position" in terms of ATC contributions as a marketing point, and having an accurate baseline for those numbers might also be valuable. For example, DreamHost has suddenly become the most substantial contributor to Quantum *ever*. :)
http://www.stackalytics.com/engineers/markmcclain?metric=loc&period=hava...
As for myself, I often use the count of individual members, corporate members, and total committers in sales and marketing materials - and I've found a number of discrepancies in the user database that I find concerning (duplicate names, etc.). Solid, official data is valuable for everyone - and I think inviting these other projects to join the activity board effort, by making it an openstack project itself, could be a great way to get there.
--
Joshua McKenty Chief Technology Officer Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. +1 (650) 242-5683 +1 (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com
"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org wrote:
Hi Josh
On Mon 08 Jul 2013 07:42:20 PM CEST, Joshua McKenty wrote:
Stefano, it seems like we're getting a proliferation of "stats and analysis" efforts, including Mirantis's newly launched http://www.stackalytics.com/. Would you be up for spearheading a new OpenStack "program" to coordinate these various efforts?
Sure, I like to think that I'm already half-way there with the Activity Board. Http://activity.openstack.org is the program I run now that wants to be the 'official' way to get useful stats and metrics. "Useful" in this context is data and metrics that are needed to manage the community and the development teams. We don't do comparisons with other projects and we are adding more and more features, sources and datapoints based on the feedback from project managers and users (see the first release of data from gerrit on the dash http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/scr.html). We are working hard to make sure that the data is correct and meaningful for day-to-day consumption, not just for quarterly reports and flashy announcements.
There is also a topic for the openstack-dev mailing list with interesting discussions coming from PTLs and project managers (http://openstack.markmail.org/search/?q=subject%3A%5Bmetrics%5D+list%3Aorg.o... to get an idea of what is discussed there).
I believe Mirantis started their effort before Activity Board was available and stackalytics was born out of their internal need to track lines of code (a metric that many in openstack-dev believe has less priority than other data points currently missing in Activity Board). Qingjye similarly had his own itch to scratch when he started doing the comparison across different projects.
What problem you believe such multitude of reports not coming from the Foundation is creating?
/stef
-- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
It seems a pity to have duplicate efforts, especially when there are useful blueprints to help profile deployments like https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/opt-in-stats-tracking that could benefit from some community attention.
Tim
From: Joshua McKenty [mailto:joshua@pistoncloud.com] Sent: 08 July 2013 20:24 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: Yujie Du; Gordon, Joe; Boris Renski; marketing@lists.openstack.org; Qingye Jiang; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
I believe that the OpenStack marketing community sees comparisons to other open source cloud frameworks as significant competitive positioning. Accuracy in that data would be valuable to the whole community.
I *know* that a number of OpenStack member companies use their "position" in terms of ATC contributions as a marketing point, and having an accurate baseline for those numbers might also be valuable. For example, DreamHost has suddenly become the most substantial contributor to Quantum *ever*. :)
http://www.stackalytics.com/engineers/markmcclain?metric=loc&period=hava...
As for myself, I often use the count of individual members, corporate members, and total committers in sales and marketing materials - and I've found a number of discrepancies in the user database that I find concerning (duplicate names, etc.). Solid, official data is valuable for everyone - and I think inviting these other projects to join the activity board effort, by making it an openstack project itself, could be a great way to get there.
--
Joshua McKenty Chief Technology Officer Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. +1 (650) 242-5683 +1 (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com
"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org wrote:
Hi Josh
On Mon 08 Jul 2013 07:42:20 PM CEST, Joshua McKenty wrote:
Stefano, it seems like we're getting a proliferation of "stats and analysis" efforts, including Mirantis's newly launched http://www.stackalytics.com/. Would you be up for spearheading a new OpenStack "program" to coordinate these various efforts?
Sure, I like to think that I'm already half-way there with the Activity Board. Http://activity.openstack.org is the program I run now that wants to be the 'official' way to get useful stats and metrics. "Useful" in this context is data and metrics that are needed to manage the community and the development teams. We don't do comparisons with other projects and we are adding more and more features, sources and datapoints based on the feedback from project managers and users (see the first release of data from gerrit on the dash http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/scr.html). We are working hard to make sure that the data is correct and meaningful for day-to-day consumption, not just for quarterly reports and flashy announcements.
There is also a topic for the openstack-dev mailing list with interesting discussions coming from PTLs and project managers (http://openstack.markmail.org/search/?q=subject%3A%5Bmetrics%5D+list%3Aorg.o... to get an idea of what is discussed there).
I believe Mirantis started their effort before Activity Board was available and stackalytics was born out of their internal need to track lines of code (a metric that many in openstack-dev believe has less priority than other data points currently missing in Activity Board). Qingjye similarly had his own itch to scratch when he started doing the comparison across different projects.
What problem you believe such multitude of reports not coming from the Foundation is creating?
/stef
-- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
+2 for one system to track these details. Lots of noise whenever a new system comes out and its not fully accurate. Seems better to just avoid that noise in the first place.
On 7/8/13 11:27 AM, "Tim Bell" Tim.Bell@cern.ch wrote:
It seems a pity to have duplicate efforts, especially when there are useful blueprints to help profile deployments like https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/opt-in-stats-tracking that could benefit from some community attention.
Tim
From: Joshua McKenty [mailto:joshua@pistoncloud.com] Sent: 08 July 2013 20:24 To: Stefano Maffulli Cc: Yujie Du; Gordon, Joe; Boris Renski; marketing@lists.openstack.org; Qingye Jiang; user-committee@lists.openstack.org; community@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack Marketing] [openstack-community] qyjohn's quarterly report of the size and health of the 4 open source projects is out
I believe that the OpenStack marketing community sees comparisons to other open source cloud frameworks as significant competitive positioning. Accuracy in that data would be valuable to the whole community.
I *know* that a number of OpenStack member companies use their "position" in terms of ATC contributions as a marketing point, and having an accurate baseline for those numbers might also be valuable. For example, DreamHost has suddenly become the most substantial contributor to Quantum *ever*. :)
http://www.stackalytics.com/engineers/markmcclain?metric=loc&period=hava... &project_type=incubation
As for myself, I often use the count of individual members, corporate members, and total committers in sales and marketing materials
- and I've found a number of discrepancies in the user database that I
find concerning (duplicate names, etc.). Solid, official data is valuable for everyone - and I think inviting these other projects to join the activity board effort, by making it an openstack project itself, could be a great way to get there.
--
Joshua McKenty Chief Technology Officer Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. +1 (650) 242-5683 +1 (650) 283-6846 http://www.pistoncloud.com
"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org wrote:
Hi Josh
On Mon 08 Jul 2013 07:42:20 PM CEST, Joshua McKenty wrote:
Stefano, it seems like we're getting a proliferation of "stats and analysis" efforts, including Mirantis's newly launched http://www.stackalytics.com/. Would you be up for spearheading a new OpenStack "program" to coordinate these various efforts?
Sure, I like to think that I'm already half-way there with the Activity Board. Http://activity.openstack.org is the program I run now that wants to be the 'official' way to get useful stats and metrics. "Useful" in this context is data and metrics that are needed to manage the community and the development teams. We don't do comparisons with other projects and we are adding more and more features, sources and datapoints based on the feedback from project managers and users (see the first release of data from gerrit on the dash http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/scr.html). We are working hard to make sure that the data is correct and meaningful for day-to-day consumption, not just for quarterly reports and flashy announcements.
There is also a topic for the openstack-dev mailing list with interesting discussions coming from PTLs and project managers (http://openstack.markmail.org/search/?q=subject%3A%5Bmetrics%5D+list%3Aorg.o... enstack.lists.openstack-dev to get an idea of what is discussed there).
I believe Mirantis started their effort before Activity Board was available and stackalytics was born out of their internal need to track lines of code (a metric that many in openstack-dev believe has less priority than other data points currently missing in Activity Board). Qingjye similarly had his own itch to scratch when he started doing the comparison across different projects.
What problem you believe such multitude of reports not coming from the Foundation is creating?
/stef
-- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
On 07/08/2013 08:24 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
I believe that the OpenStack marketing community sees comparisons to other open source cloud frameworks as significant competitive positioning. Accuracy in that data would be valuable to the whole community.
If you're arguing that Activity Board should include some data from other cloud frameworks let's discuss what questions you'd like to see answered/what raw data. Keep in mind that comparing different projects is like comparing oranges and apples: cloudstack and openstack are not comparable. The work that Qingye Jiang does is IMHO valuable when it highlights trends across different metrics for separate projects but it opens to all sorts of criticisms when it creates indexes like the Activeness Index and when it compares absolute numbers across projects (for example, the way openstack uses its -dev mailing list is different than cloudstack's making the comparison irrelevant; neither you can compare discussions on gerrit with mlist traffic).
I wouldn't want the Foundation to produce anything like a comparative analysis for public consumption. IMHO public comparative reports would create way too much noise and risk of distracting our marketing resources.
For internal reports I'd be open to start tracking some significant metrics from other projects: let me know which ones you care about and I'll be happy to work on producing a periodic report for staff and board.
I *know* that a number of OpenStack member companies use their "position" in terms of ATC contributions as a marketing point, and having an accurate baseline for those numbers might also be valuable.
All that data is public on the OpenStack Activity Board: data may be wrong though and if you spot mistakes please let me know so I can correct them. How companies decide to use public data gathered from gerrit, git/github etc is their decision to make.
For example, DreamHost has suddenly become the most substantial contributor to Quantum *ever*. :)
I see the smile ... but for the record, your link refers to a report limited to havana only and counts 'Lines of code' (added/removed? not clear) which is a very poor metric when quoted out of context: I'm sure you know and I'd expect to count on people that know for not quoting such data point out of context.
As for myself, I often use the count of individual members, corporate members, and total committers in sales and marketing materials - and I've found a number of discrepancies in the user database that I find concerning (duplicate names, etc.).
BI is hard :) At the moment the database of people+affiliation as cleaned up by Bitergia is what I consider the most reliable produced by the Foundation. It's built by merging the Foundation db and the lists included in the git-dm tables and some extra manual cleanup. I can have that one published if you think it's needed. You can also look at the JSON files and the database dumps linked from http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/index.html which are the results of elaboration. We can discuss on -dev under the [metrics] topic more about the technical details.
Solid, official data is valuable for everyone - and I think inviting these other projects to join the activity board effort, by making it an openstack project itself, could be a great way to get there.
Definitely, I have already invited Mirantis to join the current efforts. I'm waiting to see their code in order to judge if and how it can be merged with the Activity Board. I definitely like their UI, although it has less dimensions than I need to see.
I always loved the idea of having *one* place for all OpenStack-related data and I've learned that no matter what I wish, there will always be somebody with his/her own itch to scratch who decides to create a new source of data and reports.
/stef
Dear all!
I wanted to write a few comments regarding the OpenStack analytics that we published on stackalytics.com and that got quite a bit of attention from the community.
First and foremost I want to underscore that the intent of this initiative is to provide the community with full data transparency of who is doing what in OpenStack. We are of the belief that the contribution data should be tracked by the community exactly the same way OpenStack itself is being developed, in a completely open and transparent way, with clearly defined ground rules as to how the contributions are measured.
When we announced Stackalytics about 10 days ago ( http://www.openstack.org/blog/category/measurement/), we were looking to receive community feedback we could incorporate into the initial code that we are releasing to StackForge later this week. Based on this thread, so far so good!
So to reiterate, we developed Stackalytics with the following guiding principals in mind:
1. be completely transparent to the community, developed in open source, just like OpenStack itself.
2. be extremely user friendly and able to provide valuable information both to the insiders tracking their own statistics as well as to the outsiders looking to understand who the real authors of OpenStack are.
3. focus on well-defined set of metrics of what we measure (right now it is LOC and Commits with more measurements like number of reviews, etc. still to come), where the data is coming from, and the well-defined ground rules of how these measurements are calculated (e.g. we already seem to have a consensus that the auto-generated code should not be counted into the LOC count, etc.).
4. set a well-defined process of challenging any metric that should be embraced by the community using the same general process used in Gerrit code review (+1, -2, etc).
5. provide a discussion forum around Stackalytics allowing anyone to raise their issues or concerns.
I believe that with these guiding principles very soon we will develop a uniform statistics engine that will truly represent what OpenStack is all about -- an open community effort. The fact that there is already some controversy about it (thank you Josh McKenty for pointing out that the Dreamhost contribution of renaming the Quantum project caused their LOC count to soar) means that
a) people already started to follow Stackalytics b) that we have a way to improve on the way we measure the data to make it meaningful.
As one of the marketing gurus once told me, "no data is reliable until you rely on it. "
Thanks for the feedback and look forward to more.
Alex Freedland Co-Founder and Chairman Mirantis, Inc.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.orgwrote:
On 07/08/2013 08:24 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
I believe that the OpenStack marketing community sees comparisons to other open source cloud frameworks as significant competitive positioning. Accuracy in that data would be valuable to the whole
community.
If you're arguing that Activity Board should include some data from other cloud frameworks let's discuss what questions you'd like to see answered/what raw data. Keep in mind that comparing different projects is like comparing oranges and apples: cloudstack and openstack are not comparable. The work that Qingye Jiang does is IMHO valuable when it highlights trends across different metrics for separate projects but it opens to all sorts of criticisms when it creates indexes like the Activeness Index and when it compares absolute numbers across projects (for example, the way openstack uses its -dev mailing list is different than cloudstack's making the comparison irrelevant; neither you can compare discussions on gerrit with mlist traffic).
I wouldn't want the Foundation to produce anything like a comparative analysis for public consumption. IMHO public comparative reports would create way too much noise and risk of distracting our marketing resources.
For internal reports I'd be open to start tracking some significant metrics from other projects: let me know which ones you care about and I'll be happy to work on producing a periodic report for staff and board.
I *know* that a number of OpenStack member companies use their "position" in terms of ATC contributions as a marketing point, and having an accurate baseline for those numbers might also be valuable.
All that data is public on the OpenStack Activity Board: data may be wrong though and if you spot mistakes please let me know so I can correct them. How companies decide to use public data gathered from gerrit, git/github etc is their decision to make.
For example, DreamHost has suddenly become the most substantial contributor to Quantum *ever*. :)
I see the smile ... but for the record, your link refers to a report limited to havana only and counts 'Lines of code' (added/removed? not clear) which is a very poor metric when quoted out of context: I'm sure you know and I'd expect to count on people that know for not quoting such data point out of context.
As for myself, I often use the count of individual members, corporate members, and total committers in sales and marketing materials - and I've found a number of discrepancies in the user database that I find concerning (duplicate names, etc.).
BI is hard :) At the moment the database of people+affiliation as cleaned up by Bitergia is what I consider the most reliable produced by the Foundation. It's built by merging the Foundation db and the lists included in the git-dm tables and some extra manual cleanup. I can have that one published if you think it's needed. You can also look at the JSON files and the database dumps linked from http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/index.html which are the results of elaboration. We can discuss on -dev under the [metrics] topic more about the technical details.
Solid, official data is valuable for everyone - and I think inviting these other projects to join the activity board effort, by making it an openstack project itself, could be a great way to get there.
Definitely, I have already invited Mirantis to join the current efforts. I'm waiting to see their code in order to judge if and how it can be merged with the Activity Board. I definitely like their UI, although it has less dimensions than I need to see.
I always loved the idea of having *one* place for all OpenStack-related data and I've learned that no matter what I wish, there will always be somebody with his/her own itch to scratch who decides to create a new source of data and reports.
/stef
Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marketing
I agree with Stefano that comparison across multiple projects is risky and misleading in many ways, especially when it is done by an entity such as the OpenStack Foundation or Eucalyptus as a company. This is why I need to put a safe-harbor statement in my report that the report represents my own opinion rather than the opinion of my employers. (Ah… yes I am working for Eucalyptus.) And, the reason that I can continue this effort is that this project was started way way before I came to Eucalyptus, and it would be a pity to stop it.
This project was started in CY11-Q4, with the objective to compare the community (forums and mailing lists) activities of various open source IaaS projects. I agree with Stefano that CloudStack and OpenStack are oranges and apples, but at the same time oranges and apples are all fruits and should be comparable in some way. In my point of view, population (or active population) represents the size of the community, while the communications between community members represents the activeness of the community. Different communities use different communication channel in different ways, and might result in different communication behavior, and gradually form the characteristics of the community. By tracking these parameters we will be able to analysis how communities grow and fall, as well as other general sociology subjects using open source IaaS communities as examples.
The git metrics were introduced into this project in CY13-Q1. Frankly speaking I am not sure how the git metrics will impact the analysis results. I noticed several people told me that my git numbers were off, and will try to fix this problem in my CY13-Q3 report. The git analysis tool I used is a self-developed Java program. I am in the process of doing some house cleaning work for this program, and will make it available on github in a couple of days so that you guys can also use it (and fix it).
The program to track forums and mailing lists is not fully automatic, and needs lot of manual transmission to make it work. The major challenges include (1) dealing with old data, such as EOL'ed mailing lists and forums, and (2) de-duplication of membership. I am still in the process of fixing it.
Best regards,
Qingye Jiang (John)
在 2013-7-9，上午6:47，Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org 写道：
On 07/08/2013 08:24 PM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
I believe that the OpenStack marketing community sees comparisons to other open source cloud frameworks as significant competitive positioning. Accuracy in that data would be valuable to the whole community.
If you're arguing that Activity Board should include some data from other cloud frameworks let's discuss what questions you'd like to see answered/what raw data. Keep in mind that comparing different projects is like comparing oranges and apples: cloudstack and openstack are not comparable. The work that Qingye Jiang does is IMHO valuable when it highlights trends across different metrics for separate projects but it opens to all sorts of criticisms when it creates indexes like the Activeness Index and when it compares absolute numbers across projects (for example, the way openstack uses its -dev mailing list is different than cloudstack's making the comparison irrelevant; neither you can compare discussions on gerrit with mlist traffic).
I wouldn't want the Foundation to produce anything like a comparative analysis for public consumption. IMHO public comparative reports would create way too much noise and risk of distracting our marketing resources.
For internal reports I'd be open to start tracking some significant metrics from other projects: let me know which ones you care about and I'll be happy to work on producing a periodic report for staff and board.
I *know* that a number of OpenStack member companies use their "position" in terms of ATC contributions as a marketing point, and having an accurate baseline for those numbers might also be valuable.
All that data is public on the OpenStack Activity Board: data may be wrong though and if you spot mistakes please let me know so I can correct them. How companies decide to use public data gathered from gerrit, git/github etc is their decision to make.
For example, DreamHost has suddenly become the most substantial contributor to Quantum *ever*. :)
I see the smile ... but for the record, your link refers to a report limited to havana only and counts 'Lines of code' (added/removed? not clear) which is a very poor metric when quoted out of context: I'm sure you know and I'd expect to count on people that know for not quoting such data point out of context.
As for myself, I often use the count of individual members, corporate members, and total committers in sales and marketing materials - and I've found a number of discrepancies in the user database that I find concerning (duplicate names, etc.).
BI is hard :) At the moment the database of people+affiliation as cleaned up by Bitergia is what I consider the most reliable produced by the Foundation. It's built by merging the Foundation db and the lists included in the git-dm tables and some extra manual cleanup. I can have that one published if you think it's needed. You can also look at the JSON files and the database dumps linked from http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/index.html which are the results of elaboration. We can discuss on -dev under the [metrics] topic more about the technical details.
Solid, official data is valuable for everyone - and I think inviting these other projects to join the activity board effort, by making it an openstack project itself, could be a great way to get there.
Definitely, I have already invited Mirantis to join the current efforts. I'm waiting to see their code in order to judge if and how it can be merged with the Activity Board. I definitely like their UI, although it has less dimensions than I need to see.
I always loved the idea of having *one* place for all OpenStack-related data and I've learned that no matter what I wish, there will always be somebody with his/her own itch to scratch who decides to create a new source of data and reports.
/stef
participants (12)
-
Alex Freedland
-
Atwood, Mark
-
Bob Ball
-
Christopher B Ferris
-
Gordon, Joe
-
Joshua Harlow
-
Joshua McKenty
-
Qingye Jiang (John)
-
Qingye Jiang (John)
-
Stefano Maffulli
-
Tim Bell
-
Yujie Du