From: Soft Works <softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2025 03:37:40 +0000 Message-ID: <DM8P223MB0365A4194EBFBD643F0F89F5BAEA2@DM8P223MB0365.NAMP223.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c411f90d-837f-4875-87ee-1f66cbd70288@gmail.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Leo > Izen > Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:26 AM > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2 > > On 1/31/25 11:01 AM, Soft Works wrote: [..] Hi Leo, > > How about a quadratic attenuation of past commit counts, so that > older commits count less than more recent ones? Shortly after sending I realized that it's exponential, not quadratic (which was the initial idea), sorry for the mixup. > Such quadratic metrics tend to be such that for currently active > contributors, it roughly correlates with square root of commit count > (which is an increasing function) and therefore isn't meaningfully > different. I'm not sure whether I can follow. Do you mean for 1. currently active contributors who have been active in the past 2. currently active contributors who have not been active in the past 3. for both equally? If you mean that it's equal for all in (1), that would be just like intended as the goal would be to give them more voting power than those in (2). It would also give those a vote who have contributed in the past but are no longer active, yet decreasing over time. > A similar thing was discovered in the N-papers-cited-N-times-each > metric > which was popular at one point in academia as an alternative to > citation > count. It turned out to maximize the area of an axis-bounded square > when > contributions were plotted, which is why for naturally occurring data > it > correlated pretty well with the square root of total citation count. > > While this isn't an entirely analogous situation, most contributors > who > are active have been active since they started contributing, > so this > doesn't do a whole lot except to pick out people who used to be > active > and then stopped and then started up again. I'm not sure how it was done in the case you are referring to, but it sounds like the time axis there would have been scaled to the begin of their activity, while in this case, it would be absolute. (please correct me if I'm misinterpreting) Also, in the academic area, one usually doesn't stop activity like it happens in case of ffmpeg, for which one would be given decreasing weight of votes over time. I'm not actually proposing this as a model, but some had said that contributions from past times (earlier than the 3-yr GA range) should give them more weight in voting, and my answer to that is, if this would be done, then it should be at least in a way that recent contributions will count more than older contributions. What was the outcome in the academic world - back to citation count? Best sw _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-02 3:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2025-01-29 20:33 Michael Niedermayer 2025-01-29 21:39 ` Leo Izen 2025-01-29 21:47 ` Nicolas George 2025-01-29 21:48 ` Soft Works 2025-01-30 6:38 ` Vittorio Giovara 2025-01-29 23:43 ` Niklas Haas 2025-01-30 18:04 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-01-31 14:36 ` Nicolas George 2025-01-31 14:58 ` Nicolas George 2025-01-31 15:44 ` James Almer 2025-01-31 16:01 ` Soft Works 2025-02-02 2:25 ` Leo Izen 2025-02-02 3:37 ` Soft Works [this message] 2025-02-02 7:29 ` Vittorio Giovara 2025-02-01 0:49 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-02-01 6:45 ` Zhao Zhili 2025-02-01 13:21 ` Ronald S. Bultje 2025-02-01 14:30 ` Vittorio Giovara 2025-02-01 14:11 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf 2025-02-01 14:31 ` Vittorio Giovara 2025-02-02 11:34 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-02-01 13:30 ` James Almer 2025-02-01 21:53 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-02-02 18:14 ` James Almer 2025-02-03 18:08 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-02-03 18:16 ` Vittorio Giovara 2025-02-03 19:14 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-02-03 20:45 ` Nicolas George 2025-02-03 2:29 ` Ronald S. Bultje 2025-02-01 22:27 ` Michael Niedermayer 2025-02-01 22:29 ` Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel 2025-02-02 21:35 ` James Almer 2025-01-30 6:41 ` Vittorio Giovara 2025-02-01 20:44 ` Nicolas George 2025-02-02 0:01 ` Michael Niedermayer
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=DM8P223MB0365A4194EBFBD643F0F89F5BAEA2@DM8P223MB0365.NAMP223.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM \ --to=softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org \ --cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \ ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com public-inbox-index ffmpegdev Example config snippet for mirrors. AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git