You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 5, 2022. It is now read-only.
In the Value Working Group, we regularly referring to other metrics as related to a given metric.
At times, it's in a dependent way: I require number of forks in order to calculate popularity.
At other times, it's to offer a different framing: what an organization may consider popularity, an individual may consider a sign of skill demand.
These see-it-from-every-angle trains of thought can make the Description sections a bit lengthy. I wonder if this could be better served as a separate (optional) section?
This is part of a much larger conversation, but I would love to see a section on "Possible Interpretations" for each metric, explicitly calling out different contexts in which the metric can exist. I think it would be useful for those who are trying to decide how metrics apply to their individual situation. Perhaps we even break this into sub-sections:
For individual contributors, this metric can be helpful to ...
For corporations, this metric can be helpful when ...
For open source maintainers, this metric can be helpful when trying to...
... and so forth.
It would lay the groundwork nicely for when we implement a path for discovering metrics based on an individual's role.
I’m okay with documenting different metrics if the overlap is too thin, otherwise I would suggest:
# Perspectives / Use Cases
We describe in the “Objectives” section why someone would look at a metric and what they might use it for; that’s where I would keep this information in a format in-line with Elizabeth’s suggestion. Maybe we can add sub-headings for distinct use cases if they each require more description as Matt B pointed out.
# Dependent metrics
For parent-child relationships, we added a reference to the parent in the child metric description.
For the framing in value metrics, I suggest we link to the respective metrics in the “Implementation” section where we say that a metrics like Forks can be used.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
In the Value Working Group, we regularly referring to other metrics as related to a given metric.
At times, it's in a dependent way: I require number of forks in order to calculate popularity.
At other times, it's to offer a different framing: what an organization may consider popularity, an individual may consider a sign of skill demand.
These see-it-from-every-angle trains of thought can make the Description sections a bit lengthy. I wonder if this could be better served as a separate (optional) section?
cc @germonprez @ElizabethN @sgoggins @GeorgLink since we were talking about it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: