newspeak

Production communities, such as open-source developer networks, differ from consumer communities. Most obviously, the first makes, the second consumes; but there is also superposition of the two (makers can be consumers) and there is equally an overlap of identity narratives and thus motivations, interests, desires. But if tracking–by which I mean gathering the metrics that give statistical shape to the activity of the community–the consumer community is fairly straightforward (or at leat in theory), tracking the open source network tends to be less so, if only because what counts as a valuable contribution is not always easy to discern. For open source developers (and for community managers) speech, as reflected in email posts, Tweets, issues filed, commented upon, etc., as well as patches submitted, etc., can be too noisy; and relative silence punctuated by the occasional code submission a likely sign that the community is ailing.

But we need this data–the measure of our activity and a sense of the value of that activity as a dynamic–not just so that the community can see and anticipate problems before they become catastrophic but also so that those funding the efforts (you know, marketers) can justify the expense to their bosses.

All of which makes Bitergia’s work invaluable.

It furthers our understanding of the who, what, how of open source, moves it away from the tired myths that romanticise it and give evidence to the world of the surging importance of open source (technology, techniques) to multinational, private enterprises and vice versa.

Source: The numbers of the Open Cloud (Tokyo edition) | Bitergia’s blog