I'm personally not the biggest fan of online invents. The few events I attended last year haven't been very fun. I might attend a summit but I'm personally not super keen on organizing something I wouldn't really enjoy myself.
lskdjfhas joined
Daniel
Saying this as a scam member
Daniel
Not sure about my fellow team members
Daniel
So feel free to send an official inquiry
ralphm
This is the last meeting, where they explicitly stated that 2021 is not an in-person event and there was scepticism on having a virtual one. That said, I like the ideas presented last week and we should go ahead with them.
Zash
Observation: pep. left the XSF some time after that.
MattJ
Daniel, I don't think you're alone, and I agree that online is far from ideal compared to in-person meetups
ralphm
++
MattJ
I get the impression that FOSDEM have struggled to find speakers, I believe interest has been lower
arc
But we can't shut down as an organization just because we can't do in person events
MattJ
But I also don't believe we can legitimately take a year off
Andrzejhas joined
MattJ
I agree
MattJ
Less than ideal is better than nothing
Zash
Suggestion (hat:xsf member): Postmortem for this would be good.
ralphm
Last week it was pointed out that not having any type of gathering would leave us without concentrated discussions on protocol, as we usually have at the Summit.
Kev
I think, FWIW, FOSDEM’s appeal as a virtual event would be lower than the Summit’s. But I could be very wrong about how effectively we can have a 30/40 person remote Summit.
Mikaelahas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Zash
Kev, we could see it as a stress-test of online meeting things, then split into focus groups to argue about XEPs.
arc
I think an online event would be better if we spread it out. Instead of everyone getting together for one day, split the topics up and have several focused meetings
MattJ
arc, agreed
arc
My experience with online events is there better when they're shorter
Kev
I don’t agree with that, FWIW. It’s much easier for me to block out one day that’s going to be an event to attend than work an hour here and there into my work week.
MattJ
Shorter and more focused. I'm sure not going to hang around all day in a 40-person online video conference
Daniel
Time zones will probably also put a limit on it
Kev
But not disagreeing to the point that I’m going to argue it shouldn’t happen.
Daniel
Probably something in the European pm
ralphm
Daniel, with your scam hat on, do you think your team would pick up planning / organising something like this?
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Daniel
If the team is just me then the honest answer to that is no
Mikaelahas joined
ralphm
Well, officially SCAM is also Guus and nyco.
Dele Olajidehas left
Daniel
What's the amount of organzing you want to put into this
Daniel
Like should we just pick a week day and have four weeks after each other with 2-3 hours each?
MattJ
I think the logistics of organizing an online event (or multiple) are far lower than an in-person event
MattJ
i.e. I don't really care if SCAM isn't going to do anything. Multiple community members do want to do something, and I hope we can self-organize.
ralphm
Sure. Starting with a wiki page for collecting ideas seems prudent.
MattJ
I would try help out with that, but the next few weeks will be difficult for me
arc
Let's continue discussion after the meeting
arc
We do have the agenda item of gsoc
ralphm
right
ralphm
1. GSoC
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
ralphm
:-D
Wojtekhas left
ralphm
So, last time I remember, arc explained that payments by Google are lower and suggested the XSF compensates.
mathijshas left
arc
I would actually suggest that we compensate by shifting to outreachy this year
Kev
Lower, but the time is lower too isn’t it? Aren’t students expected to do half the work for half the pay?
arc
Yep. But they also shut down several other programs, we may be looking at the last year, or years, of gsoc
lskdjf
It's not just that the payments are lower, the projects are also supposed to be _shorter_. So the payment per time stays the same. Google apparently wants to try and open gsoc to more people, and they think that shorter projects are beneficial for that goal.
ralphm
For those here (including floor) who've mentored, are shorter projects expected to be effective (enough)?
Kev
I don’t want to shit on Google for making the change, they can do what they like with the programme. But a lot of the overhead for mentors and orgs is frontloaded.
ralphm
Oh, don't take me wrong. I am just curious if the change would work *for us*.
Kev
So the amount of code produced is much lower relative to mentor/admin effort, and the change (I predict with no data) of integrating people into the community is lower (but there is a counter argument that it might be higher because it’s less mercenary).
fuanahas joined
mathijshas joined
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
arc
I think it is still worth doing.
SamWhited
FWIW I had been thinking about trying to get my project into GSoC this year under the XSF organization. I haven't done it before, but smaller projects would actually fit in with the handful of ideas I had much better than the old larger ones.
arc
I'm just suggesting we start to shift to outreachy. Because GSoC has always been a valuable program, and should it come to an end with this year, it would be ready to fully shift over
mathijshas left
Zash
There's a GSoC for documentation, right? Anyone have any experience with that? May be closer to the core XSF thing of writing specifications, and FOSS projects are often struggling with keeping their docs up to date.
ralphm
There is, but it is later
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
arc
GSoC is about writing code, not "documentation"
Zash
I'm referring to Season of Docs
mathijshas joined
arc
Ah.
ralphm
I think, if they do it again, it will be announced in March
Zash
Indeed, so ignore me until then 🙂
larma
I don't see an issue with smaller projects. Surely needs some adjustments to how we do things, but probably still worth it. At least for the projects that are not backed by companies
mathijshas left
ralphm
I understand (from last meeting) that arc would be happy to admin (if no one else is interested) and that Kev would be around to help if he has spare cycles. Arc also suggested shifting to outreachy but I haven't seem any response on that here.
ralphm
seen
Andrzejhas left
arc
I have some response from there.
SamWhited
¿Por qué no los dos?
arc
For both programs we mostly need an idea's list
neshtaxmpphas joined
ralphm
SamWhited, I am not sure what the overhead is of running both
ralphm
Organisationally, paying out is different. For Outreachy, we'd have to do this ourselves.
ralphm
arc: can you start collecting ideas, while we figure this out?
arc
Yep, happy to.
ralphm
(i.e. do the wiki thing)
ralphm
Thanks!
larma
ralphm: I don't think we do the payouts with outreachy, we just provide the money.
arc
That is true.
ralphm
which is differnt from GSoC, I haven't looked at the specifics
arc
We supply the funding, but the people in charge of outreachy do the payouts.
LNJhas left
LNJhas joined
ralphm
Good to know.
larma
(And they charge a huge cut for the processing)
ralphm
Next week, let's discuss if we want to do GSoC, Outreachy, or both and how. For now let's gather the ideas.
ralphm
I think that's all the time we have today.
ralphm
2. Date of Next
ralphm
+1W
ralphm
3. Close
ralphm
Thanks all!
ralphmbangs gavel
Seve
Thank you guys!
larma
I think we should get this to the mailing list, because I'm missing inputs from flow, vanitasvitae and other previous gsoc mentors/admins
lskdjf
Since GSoC doesn't require the XSF to contribute money, I don't understand why the XSF doesn't just go with it as long as GSoC exists and there are project maintainers that want to make use of it.
mathijshas joined
SamWhited
Reading through the outreachy community guidelines and I really like how they structure this. Seems like it would be a lot more work for the XSF since we'd have to be the fiscal sponsor and we'd probably be able to sponsor fewer interns who would have to pick the project they want to work on from among all the people vying to be their mentor, but it seems like it would be a good fit
Kev
FWIW, I’m a little uneasy about the XSF using its limited funds to pay for development of some projects over others. If the money came from the projects themselves that concern goes away.
neshtaxmpphas left
SamWhited
The XSF probably wouldn't pick the projects, projects would just apply and the interns would pick them I think. The XSF is just paying interns.
Kev
Well, surely the XSF chooses which internships get selected, like GSoC.
moparisthebest
could just require all code written by XSF-funded interns to be AGPLv3 , then there is no conflict of interest problems if a company wants free labor :D
SamWhited
I think it would just pick the students though, give them a list of projects that applied for an intern, and the students would pick the project, but maybe not.
MattJ
Kev, you've raised that issue in the past, and I have to say I think I increasingly dislike it as time goes on
franckhas left
SamWhited
And the XSF could just not vet the projects beyond "it meets the criteria defined by the program" (which is basically "OSI approved license"
mathijshas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
MattJ
I mean, dislike having that as a rule the XSF should follow
larma
The issue seems to be that Outreachy targets open-source communities but the XSF isn't an open-source community but an open-standards organization.
SamWhited
The XSF would just be the fiscal sponsor acting as an umbrella like we do for GSoC, in my mind.
MattJ
If the code funded by the XSF is open-source then I have no problem with the XSF funding projects
MattJ
I *would* have issue with it funding closed-source projects
Mikaelahas left
SamWhited
If the XSF doesn't want to directly fund projects, they could also create a pool that projects and individuals can donate too and just be the fiscal sponsor without using any of their own money
moparisthebest
how do you define "is open-source" ? like I think SamWhited 's "OSI approved license" is correct, but that has to be the license it's submitted under too, ie, no CLA's ?
MattJ
The XSF... or another organization (back into that loop :) )
SamWhited
(since we're a US 501(c)3 but projects likely aren't and don't have a legal entity they can use)
SamWhited
moparisthebest: they have a definition on their website, I don't think we need to care beyond whatever they say
Andrzejhas joined
Zashwhispers "Snikket CIC"
larma
MattJ: I share that opinion, but IIRC the XSF is believed to be neutral regarding open source vs closed source and this would be non-neutral...
etahas left
etahas joined
Kev
MattJ: There is pragmatism in my reason, FWIW, not just dogma. Getting sponsors happy to give money to random projects rather than directly helping XMPP Standards Development seems questionable. Maybe I’m wrong.
Although I do know that some sponsorship hasn’t happened in the past because one of Board was mouthing off about the XSF not supporting anyone who wanted to make money off XMPP.
SamWhited
*nods* any org would do
MattJ
Zash, Snikket may be too opinionated for this particular case (despite having sponsored a bunch of open-source development in the past 12 months)
mathijshas joined
franckhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
mathijshas left
moparisthebest
doesn't that assume projects don't directly help XMPP Standards Development? that seems wrong
etahas left
MattJ
Zash, OTOH maybe not, if it's a separate "fund the ecosystem" thing
etahas joined
MattJ
moparisthebest, I agree, I think that's my thinking. Throwing money into standards development (??) is not what XMPP needs right now
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Kev
(FWIW, while I don’t know how effective it is, I am glad Snikket is doing what Snikket is doing)
SamWhited
I would actually be open to filing paperwork to start a thing that just accepts donations on behalf of XMPP projects, acts as a fiscal sponsor on OpenCollective or somewhere, does things like this, etc. if anyone is interested
moparisthebest
I'd argue helping fund development on these projects *is* throwing it directly into standards development
Kev
If the XSF wants to do Outreachy, why not try to get sponsors specifically for money to spend on Outreachy? That would render my concerns completely irrelevant.
moparisthebest
"standards development" isn't anything anyone here has ever done, am I wrong on that?
SamWhited
That sounds reasonable too, I do think the XSF is already positioned to be a fiscal sponsor for projects, it doesn't have to necessarily put its own money towards it
moparisthebest
instead, you have a need in a project/product/whatever, and standards come out of that
etahas left
etahas joined
Kev
All standards work is mean to be writing standards for things that are needed, I’m not sure what that point is.
Kev
Certainly people here have written standards, and certainly before implementations (and even without needing to implement it themselves).
SamWhited
board people: is this something that could go on the board meeting next week to discuss? Ie. can the XSF act as a fiscal sponsor for projects (where it just keeps track of money for them)? If so, I'd volunteer to help with that. If not, I'd volunteer to start an organization specifically for that.
moparisthebest
that process doesn't start out by writing standards though, it starts out by having a problem and thinking about how to solve it with code, in a project
neshtaxmpphas joined
mathijshas joined
Kev
That is demonstrably wrong. We have written Standards to solve problems, before thinking about the code to go with them.
moparisthebest
so, funding code for project == funding standard development, in my opinion
SamWhited
moparisthebest: I think the best specs do that, but lots of them do it with no code written
moparisthebest
hehe, yea that's how you get standards no one implements
moparisthebest
MIX for example
Kev
Some of the worst specs come out of writing code before thinking about standardising too :)
moparisthebest
that's also fair
moparisthebest
so let's say "funding code for a project where standards are thought about from day 1" == "funding standard development"
Zash
moparisthebest, https://xkcd.com/844/
SamWhited
I think the worst specs come from *deploying* code before thinking about standardizing, not necessarily writing it :) writing it, then standardizing is sort of like writing unit tests before the code; you end up going back and forth and making changes, but it's good to have at least some basic unit tests to flush out the general shape of it first
Zash
also Kev
Zash
The worst code comes from writing code!
SamWhited
sorry, before it gets lost, /cc ralphm, arc, other board people see question above
Mikaelahas joined
etahas left
etahas joined
fuanahas left
Kev
So, to avoid any misunderstanding, I’m concretely in favour of the XSF gathering sponsorship to pay for some Outreachy interns, and doing Outreachy with it.
mathijshas left
fuanahas joined
Kev
Although if we have reason to suspect this will be the last year of GSoC, there is a strong argument for trying to get money out of Google while we can :)
arc
I am reading, SamWhited. And remember I've been talking about seeking outside funding for a while.
stphas joined
moparisthebest
assuming board decides it wants to do this at all, sounds like they need to decide 1. if it can be funded "normally" or 2. if it needs special funding
SamWhited
arc: my question isn't necessarily about outside funding (although the XSF could help raise that too for things like Outreachy) but about if I as a project want to take donations in many places I need a legal entity. Some NGOs act as fiscal sponsors and take donations that they keep separated out for other projects, and if the XSF was willing to act that way for open source projects that would probably be a big help to the ecosystem
arc
As a general rule, organizations that do things, are able to get funding to continue doing those things. We should not devolve into arguing about the distribution of those funds.
SamWhited
To be clear, the XSF wouldn't be distributing funds itself or deciding how they get distributed.
arc
I would be in favor of that. Especially since most XMPP projects are fairly small with only a few developers, and it is a big overhead for them to serve as their own fiscal sponsors
SamWhited
For example, let's say my project (Mellium) wants to take donations. Right now those go to me, I am personally liable, they are not tax deductible, and most organizations that process donations won't touch me with a 10 foot pole.
SamWhited
If the XSF were my fiscal sponsor though, the donation button on my website would go to the XSF and they'd just put it in the "Mellium" account or whatever. Other projects could do the same.
arc
I understand. I have served on the boards for a few fiscal sponsors.
arc
I am in favor of that. It is really not that much work for the small number of organizations we have.
SamWhited
👍 (I've been specifically looking for one to use for some projects on OpenCollective and vaguely considering trying to start something, but at least for Mellium the XSF would be a logical place if it's something we have enough peopel to work on)
SamWhited
And I would volunteer since it's easier than starting a separate entity for me.
arc
Actually this might be an ideal time for this conversation. The FOSS foundations online drink up just started
fuanahas left
SamWhited
arc: link?
arc
Which is literally the people that you should be talking to 😋
SamWhited
I looked for FOSS Foundation when you mentioned it earlier but couldn't find anything?
SamWhited
I'm curious about this though
arc
https://video.eventyay.com/b/mar-rgt-jgy-zk0
SamWhited
Although it's only 1300 here, but meh, it's time for a beer somewhere
arc
It is 10:00 a.m. here
SamWhited
arc: are you still in Portland?
arc
Yep
SamWhited
Cool, a friend of mine is trying to move there right now (from Seattle)
mdosch
Too much rain, 'eh?
mdosch
Oh no, 'eh is vancouver. 😂
arc
I would recommend South Portland. Close to downtown, not terribly expensive, but quiet and not so much crime
etahas left
etahas joined
Yagizahas left
etahas left
etahas joined
arc
It's not one of the rich people's neighborhoods. But if you wanted to go boating, eg, I live about two blocks from a boat launch.
Timhas joined
adiaholichas left
Timhas left
Timhas joined
Andrzejhas left
fuanahas joined
adiaholichas joined
Andrzejhas joined
intosihas left
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
arc
This is a great example for the need for better foss a/v meeting software. Of course, xmpp based! BigBlueButton has problems
antranigvhas joined
Timhas left
Timhas joined
Zash
Well you've got Zoom and Jitsi.
arc
Zoom isn't foss?!
Zash
Nope. Touch of XMPP in there at least.
fuanahas left
lskdjfhas left
Timhas left
adiaholichas left
arc
I didn't know that. Not the first time I've been shocked. But I'm not talking about another multichat clone
arc
See the problem is that all the multi-chat software treats the room as if it were a stadium with a microphone. People step up on stage, speak into the microphone, sit down. Its slow and frustrating
adiaholichas joined
arc
Especially with these larger meetups.
intosihas joined
SamWhited
I don't think I've ever seen a good system for managing that in real life either that we could take as a metaphore for software
arc
And if someone were to work that out, AGPLv3 licensed, using xmpp, we win.
arc
Because it was instantly become they go to for every social group in the world
mathieui
arc, that is not true, jitsi meet does not do that
Zash
Wishing for something where you could, say, break off into smaller groups and talk more easily? Or whisper to whoever sits "next to you"?
mathieui
Also, zoom actually has "breakout rooms" which let you do just that (and it is nice in quite a lot of scenarios)
SamWhited
I'd push back on the AGPLv3 thing, but the "using xmpp" part sounds good :)
SamWhited
I think this has breakout rooms too, but I haven't tried it
arc
I'm thinking less formal. More like, groups in a room. Having two levels of microphone.
Mikaelahas left
ralphm
SamWhited: added to Trello
Andrzejhas left
arc
Less breakout rooms, more "circles". So you can wander through a room and talk to different circles. But everyone hears the person with the room microphone.
arc
SamWhited I thought you liked the AGPLv3
Zash
2D location something and mic/speaker volume scaling?
arc
I wouldn't use or emulate location. Just letting people join circles.
arc
People have suggested using certain video games that do location based talking
ralphm
So ad hoc backchannels
SamWhited
arc: I am very strongly against AGPL (or basically everything GNU does); maybe that should be my controversial opinion :)
arc
Lol
Kev
Sam: You’re only allowed one.
ralphm
Also, I don't think it is controversial
arc
Ralphm yeah like adhoc breakout rooms. Which happen organically
ralphm
(the opinion, not Sam)
SamWhited
arc: I can't remember what it's called, but have you used the virtual neighborhoods chat thing? You sort of walk around a map like it's a little 2d video game and when you walk up to people their videos and mics fade in as you get close. It sounds gimmicky, but I've found it works very well
arc
People suggested that for this meeting. But here we are an hour on, still doing introductions
arc
I don't think we should be limited to emulating the real world. I'm thinking, do better than real world
Kev
It’d be good to start by not being worse than the physical world :)
arc
Lol true
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
arc
Well it took an hour to mostly get through everyone's introductions 😂
moparisthebest
arc, me and pep were the very pro AGPLv3 for everything ones :)
arc
Chris DiBona sitting with Linux Torvalds convinced me that AGPLv3 is really the only way forward for FOSS.
arc
After that talk, I started relicensing everything. in increasingly lost interest in working on anything that's not.
SamWhited
I basically want an XMPP client but when you click a room on the left you get a video call on the right (possibly with chat too, but the focus is video calling). Which I guess is also like saying: Mumble with video. Instead of how most video call things work where you have semi-permanent rooms and you're really just in one at a time and can't switch between them rapidly
arc
Like, I haven't contributed to Gnome because all those contributions were LGPL.
mathijshas joined
Andrzejhas joined
adiaholichas left
intosihas left
SamWhited
I basically feel the same way about (A)GPL as I do about politics; my actual deep-blood-of-the-worker-red comrades just think I'm pinko scum because I prefer the less limiting BSD, MIT, Apache, etc.
arc
Anything less is exploitive. I know too many housing challenged foss developers, many with some form of autism, working on foss because they love it. Many who's work is freely used my large corporations to make billions, and at best sometimes toss pocket change to those people. At best.
arc
The only people who are really limited by copyleft are the ones exploiting the community's work for profit. A vast majority of end users don't care what the license is.
chronosx88has left
SamWhited
I agree with the desire to make large companies using open source pay their share, but I don't think licensing is the way to do it. It hurts me when there are more restrcitions in a license too even though I'm just also an open source dev who will try to use it correctly. Now I have to worry if I'm complying with every detail, what counts as linking and what doesn't and how that would be interpreted legally, do I have to change my license just because I want to use some sortware that has a ton of restrictions making it incompatible with it, etc.
ti_gj06has left
arc
I am paraphrasing here, but Chris DiBona was asked why code.google.com banned the AGPLv3. And his answer was shockingly honest: because AGPLv3 license would bankrupt them.
Zash
And here I just wanna do my thing and not worry about licensing.
SamWhited
There's also what Zash just said… I don't want to worry about it. Slapping a BSD like license on it and only using stuff that's slimilarly permissive lets me do that
arc
SamWhited, that's why I offer commercial licenses. Or more specifically, licensed exceptions
moparisthebest
arc, add this to the list of reasons: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ (sounds same as yours but it written form)
SamWhited
I'd ad that to the list of reasons against :) I have the same fear as an OSS dev doing my best to respect the wishes of other software authors. I want to respect their wishes, but what if I accidentally trigger the viral provision?
arc
I offer extremely competitively priced exceptions. The only discrimination is against military and military contractors.
nycohas left
SamWhited
I do like the idea of offering commercial license exceptions
arc
Yeah then it's not exploitative anymore.
moparisthebest
> here I just wanna do my thing and not worry about licensing.
that's another reason, I can use code licensed almost anything in an AGPLv3 project, so it's also handier for me
moparisthebest
meh, to be able to offer commercial exceptions you need CLAs which are equally sleazy
SamWhited
But fewer people can use my project, I don't want them to have to worry either. I just want it out there. Hopefully companies will toss me a couple of bucks on occasion, or I can have some other way to monetize it that doesn't also make OSS devs have to jump through hoops if they want to use it and aren't using something compatible
arc
Lately I've been increasingly using a cooperative model. People who contribute code get a share of whatever comes from that code.
SamWhited
arc: I'd be really curious how you handle that? I like the co-op model a lot which is why I tend to split the copyright among all contributors, but I don't really make any money on anything I work on outside of <dayjob> so I'd love to know how it works when there's an actual big community rpoject
SamWhited
On a tagentially related note: would anyone with a GitHub account help me prove a point about why github stars are a bad metric for anything by starring a repo of mine? (I will not be making any benefit from this, it's just to prove a point that my project with no contributions from anyone except me can have a lot of stars)
SamWhited
https://github.com/mellium/xmpp if anyone is willing.
moparisthebest
I also like the "high number of issues == low quality software" metric
moparisthebest
can't fix stupid I guess ? :'(
SamWhited
Exactly, basically the same thing.
nycohas joined
SamWhited
When I was in school I did an internship with a defense contractor that gave raises based on the number of lines of code written in a git blame for the year. As you can imagine, it was the most ridiculously bloated software. All the stupid tricks like putting one argument per line even in small function calls would get called out in code review, but people still did things in stupid round about ways.
neshtaxmpphas left
lskdjfhas joined
moparisthebest
I thought that kind of thing was a joke
Andrzejhas left
moparisthebest
at work we joke that the contractors must be getting paid by the line, even though we know they aren't...
Zash
Don't they know it's the inverse of that! Also popularity ≠ quality!!11! Aaaargh, how do you become a potato farmer?
etahas left
moparisthebest
npm install potato-farmer ?
SamWhited
In this case it's popularity ≠ robust community. I started talking to someone from Open Colletive befor the FOSDEM call ended, so we're emailing to have the converation about why I think stars aren't anywhere close to their metric and my small project shouldn't have to jump through more hoops than a project that's equally small but a trendy tech and more people bookmarked it
Mikaelahas joined
moparisthebest
I thought stars were more like github-bookmarks
SamWhited
They are.
mimi89999has left
moparisthebest
like I have a couple hundred line arduino code snippets that haven't been touched since 2012 that I think might come in handy one day starred
moparisthebest
and, not things like curl, because I know where they are, and they are easy to find
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
chronosx88has joined
intosihas joined
mdosch
> I thought stars were more like github-bookmarks
I use them like that. 😃
SamWhited
I think a lot of people do, but a lot also use it to say thanks when someone makes something they use, which is I think where the "it obviously means it's popular" comes from.
chronosx88has left
moparisthebest
yea I've never done that once, interesting
moparisthebest
I must have missed the "github: how to use stars" class
SamWhited
I mean, I think that's fine, I just don't think that means other people should attribute meaning to "100 stars" or whatever
chronosx88has joined
Kev
On a tagentially related note: would anyone with a PayPal account help me prove a point about why being rich is a bad metric for anything by sending me all their money? (I will not be making any benefit from this, it's just to prove a point ...)
mathijshas left
SamWhited
Oh man, my scam just feels so armetureish now. Kev wins.
mdosch
Kev, prince of Nigeria…
SamWhited
(but in all seriousness, I am trying to convince Open Collective to come up with some metric other than GitHub stars)
mdosch
What would be a good metric?
Kev
There isn’t one? :)
SamWhited
Yah, I think it's got ot be something you determine individually, not by something specific to a code hosting service
intosihas left
SamWhited
Maybe a mix of unique contributors, activity over time (including having multiple people consitsently active), etc.?
Kev
It also depends what you’re trying to measure. Quality, or ease of access as a contributor?
Kev
If it’s the former, number of contributors isn’t a particularly good metric. If the latter, it may well be.
SamWhited
I think they're trying to measure the health of the community
chronosx88has left
Kev
Your suggestions sound like a reasonable way to think about that then, yes. I assumed it was something project-related.
chronosx88has joined
SamWhited
Sorry, should have explained up front. Open Collective accepts projects into their fiscal host only if they have >100 stars on GitHub. I believe that is a bad metric. I said so as the "controversial opinion" question in a call earlier and someone form Open Collective reached out and asked if I was talking about them and why I thought it was a bad idea
mimi89999has joined
SamWhited
So I thought before I sent an email I'd try and get my project with literally no community up to that number and link them to it and a few others I know that are at or close to that.
lionelexecrechas joined
lionelexecrechas left
adiaholichas joined
lionelexecrechas joined
mdosch
Afair I even got a star on github for a repo that was automatically cloned into my account when I just PRed something minor like a typo. 🙂