Re: Yet another list statistics for debian-project
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 08:25:38PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > For instance, I was gratified to see the statistics for debian-legal,
> > because they support my position that the discussion there is being DoSed by
> > non-DDs who are trying to use it as a forum to persuade Debian that their
> > interpretation of the DFSG is the correct one.
> That might be true, but I don't see how it follows from the statistics
> posted. There are 5 people listed in the -legal top 10 who are not
> DDs now and of those: Andrew Suffield stopped posting when he was
> still a DD IIRC; and Nathanael Nerode mostly stopped posting around
> the same time he was rejected from NM by
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/04/msg00010.html
> overriding http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2006/06/msg00023.html
> So that leaves 3 completely non-developer participants as far as I know.
One of whom is the single largest contributor to debian-legal by volume for
the past three years, which is enough to catapult him to the all-time top
ten contributors on a mailing list that's been in existence for over a
decade and which used to have much broader participation on the part of
Debian developers.
And who outpaces by about a factor of two the second greatest contributor
over the last two years (out of the set of largest all-time posters).
> I suggest that the most probable interpretation is that the list
> probably got badly off-topic in 2003-2004. FDL or editorial changes,
> perhaps? Comment about "activists" or non-DDs isn't really supported
> by the data presented here.
I suggest that Francesco Poli's repeated license analyses that include the
phrase "IMHO this isn't DFSG-free but the ftpmasters will probably accept it
anyway" are what's badly off-topic.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: