> You may also want to look at the following scenarios.
>
> Core member posts, regular replies, core member replies in return.
>
In such case there are two incrementations going on:
- for 'Core member posts, regular replies': CRS+=1
- for 'regular replies, core member replies in return': CRS+=1
core - regular relation may be reversed as well: regular - core.
Single counter does the job here.
I'm not sure I like this idea. Ultimately it seems to be about scoring
"points" for users, and we don't really want to do that... I think a
project focus is a lot more important, and looking at data in aggregate
is key.
Is it one who sends in very big high quality patches (even if they are
small), or one that just asks lots of questions? Must one change lots of
code or send in lots of commits? What about those that speak about
topics for you and help market things?
It's impossible to specify this, which is why I think at most you can
identify "top mailing list posters" (which v2 did) and "top
committeers"
... and it probably
doesn't make sense to pigeonhole users into different classes. As we
attempt to define what "core" means we inject our own biases...
Different people are great for different things.
This is why EKG shouldn't try to assign meaning to the data -- it should
be about gathering and presenting the data and let people draw their own
interpretations from it.
We definitely don't want to turn this to any kind of Score Card where
people are trying to get "points" or see who is "more core", or even
assigning score cards to projects.
Small projects with niche interests are just as important as some of the
larger ones... gather the data, make it available, and let people decide
what they want to do with it outside the context of the EKG project.
--Michael