search

chaoss / wg-value

CHAOSS Value Working Group
MIT License
39 stars 29 forks source link

Reframe existing metrics into the new mission #73

Closed mbbroberg closed 4 years ago

mbbroberg commented 4 years ago

There are existing valuable metrics, currently under the /archived folder, that we would like to have in the next release of CHAOSS to provide continuity of metrics.

:: updated April 10th ::

The last meeting of the Value WG determined there are plenty of paths forward for the metrics currently under 'archive,' and we intend to bring them into the fold. This issue will close once that's done.

:: update May 7th ::

We may be closer to finding homes and reframing of these metrics. Please volunteer to shepherd them back into the project!

germonprez commented 4 years ago

I'm generally of the mind that we should not remove or archive the prior approved metrics. We should work towards a way to incorporate them ... perhaps if we need to reframe the Focus Group headings, that might be a way to go.

samanthavenialogan commented 4 years ago

I don't think I have the context or background necessary to really weigh in but as someone whose metric is in that spot.... I agree. I don't think that defaulting all of the metrics to not applicable moving forward with the new mission is a good idea. There are hidden allowances there that people may be using and our understanding of whether they provide use in accordance with the mission may not line up with how people use them on their end.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:00 AM Matt Germonprez notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm generally of the mind that we should not remove or archive the prior approved metrics. We should work towards a way to incorporate them ... perhaps if we need to reframe the Focus Group headings, that might be a way to go.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/chaoss/wg-value/issues/73#issuecomment-611608162, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANBRVR3F7KIU3FBQDQAVGQ3RLXWKJANCNFSM4LULGGDQ .

GeorgLink commented 4 years ago

I believe we have established during the calls that we want to preserve the metrics and the conversation is ongoing across issues and our bi-weekly meetings.

mbbroberg commented 4 years ago

I'm [Matt G] generally of the mind that we should not remove or archive the prior approved metrics. We should work towards a way to incorporate them.

100% agreed. I had a rough first draft of how to move forward, and as I continue to learn from the history of the group I see lots of opportunity to clarify the usage of previous metrics so industry has a path toward usage in the context of this working group.

To that point, I opened #46 after learning more from @samanthavenialogan and team.

I believe we have established during the calls that we want to preserve the metrics and the conversation is ongoing across issues and our bi-weekly meetings.

Yes, exactly.

--

This issue will be resolved by PRs for each of the existing metrics being resubmit.

mbbroberg commented 4 years ago

This can close due to reframing completed in #93