[Evangelism] Plone and QUALOSS - QUALity in Open Source Software

[Graham Perrin]

EU Research investigates the Quality and Socioeconomic aspects of Free
Libre Open Source Software

The thirty-month QUALOSS project is scheduled to end around March 2009.

I wonder what the quality measurements of Plone will be.

Personally, I think that Plone excels in many areas. The recent swarm views
of things are testaments to openness and innovation, both flourishing in and
around the quality requirements and long-term planning of Plone core.

References:

QUALOSS
QUALity in Open Source Software
<http://www.qualoss.org/>
<http://www.qualoss.org/about>

OpenBRR
Business Readiness Rating? (BRR)
<http://www.openbrr.org/>

Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS)
<http://qsos.org/>

<http://www.qualoss.org/dissemination/comparing-assessment-methodologies-for-free-open-source>
(June 2008) and the related PDF (sixteen pages).

<http://n2.nabble.com/RDF-and-Researchers-tp362574p362578.html> (May 2007)

<http://n2.nabble.com/3-research-projects-investigating-open-source-software-quality-launch-a-join-portal-tp362581p362581.html>
(June 2007)

Flossquality - Open source quality research
<http://flossquality.eu/>

SQO-OSS
Software Quality Observatory for Open Source Software
<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/>

FLOSSMetrics
Free/Libre Open Source Software Metrics
<http://www.flossmetrics.org/>

<http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>
(October 2008)

----

That at least four of the sites referenced above are Plone-powered should be
no surprise;
<http://www.zeapartners.org/articles/collaborative-research006>

explains how collaborative software as Plone brings outstanding benefits
to EU research projects.

and by pleasant coincidence, earlier this week I prepared Plone site for a
five-nation six-partner EU project :)

Regards

Graham Perrin, Project/Media Development Officer
CENTRIM - the Centre for Research in Innovation Management
<http://www.brighton.ac.uk/centrim/graham>
[phone]

[Xavier Heymans]

Hi,

Zea Partners is involved in Qualoss and Flossmetrics. We also have
established a close collaboration with other EU research projects.

Very soon, Plone going to be added to projects analyzed by Flossmetrics:
http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system

So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS
Community on these topics. In 2009, I would like to organize a
validation workshop that would involve researchers (who would present
the data they can extract from the Plone/Zope repositories) and
community experts to be found (that could provide feedback on the
quality and interpretation of the data extracted. Before this, I
would like to know if we could find some "quality leaders" within the
Plone and Zope community that could become technical contact points
to provide feedback to the researchers.

All the best,

Xavier


More
-------
A number of articles related to EU activities are published here:
www.zeapartners.org/eu

Among the articles presenting awards:
http://www.zeapartners.org/awards/en

you will find:
Plone: Best IST research project website
http://www.zeapartners.org/awards/en/best-ist-project-website-award
====================

Post by Graham Perrin

EU Research investigates the Quality and Socioeconomic aspects of Free
Libre Open Source Software

The thirty-month QUALOSS project is scheduled to end around March 2009.

We are currently negotiating an extension of 6 to 9 months.

Post by Graham Perrin
I wonder what the quality measurements of Plone will be.
Personally, I think that Plone excels in many areas. The recent swarm views
of things are testaments to openness and innovation, both
flourishing in and
around the quality requirements and long-term planning of Plone core.
QUALOSS
QUALity in Open Source Software
<http://www.qualoss.org/>
<http://www.qualoss.org/about>
OpenBRR
Business Readiness Rating? (BRR)
<http://www.openbrr.org/>
Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS)
<http://qsos.org/>
<http://www.qualoss.org/dissemination/comparing-assessment-
methodologies-for-free-open-source>
(June 2008) and the related PDF (sixteen pages).
<http://n2.nabble.com/RDF-and-Researchers-tp362574p362578.html> (May 2007)
<http://n2.nabble.com/3-research-projects-investigating-open-source-
software-quality-launch-a-join-portal-tp362581p362581.html>
(June 2007)
Flossquality - Open source quality research
<http://flossquality.eu/>
SQO-OSS
Software Quality Observatory for Open Source Software
<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/>
FLOSSMetrics
Free/Libre Open Source Software Metrics
<http://www.flossmetrics.org/>
<http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---
more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>
(October 2008)
----
That at least four of the sites referenced above are Plone-powered should be
no surprise;
<http://www.zeapartners.org/articles/collaborative-research006>

explains how collaborative software as Plone brings outstanding benefits
to EU research projects.

and by pleasant coincidence, earlier this week I prepared Plone site for a
five-nation six-partner EU project :)
Regards
Graham Perrin, Project/Media Development Officer
CENTRIM - the Centre for Research in Innovation Management
<http://www.brighton.ac.uk/centrim/graham>
[phone]
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-and-
QUALOSS---QUALity-in-Open-Source-Software-tp1402419p1402419.html
Sent from the Evangelism mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Evangelism mailing list
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism

[Graham Perrin]

http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system ?

Thanks, Xavier. We find Plone, Python and Zope at
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/1095/>
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/30/>
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/57/>

Veering a little off-topic:
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/1/> could be of interest if
we consider Plone interactions with OpenOffice.org.

That thought, spurred by the recent announcement re: SharePoint and
Confluence; amongst the highlights at
<http://groups.diigo.com/search?group_name=collaboration&what=h%3ASharePoint>
the comments concerning support are noteworthy.

[Graham Perrin]

??So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS
Community on these topics. ? I would like to know if we could find some
"quality leaders" within the Plone and Zope community that could become
technical contact points to provide feedback to the researchers.

Glancing at the three projects under the Flossquality umbrella, I guess that
some of the people with whom you wish to make links might hesitate, with
thoughts such as these:

1) Will information that I provide to FLOSSMetrics be communicated
appropriately, effectively and in good time to other relevant projects, in
particular QualOSS and SQO-OSS?

-- underlying wish: duplication of input/effort should be as close as
possible to zero.

2) Can you demonstrate that deliverables of the three projects are being
used effectively? For example, how are SMEs responding to the guides
<http://flossmetrics.org/sections/deliverables> provided by FLOSSMetrics?

-- underlying wish: what's in it for us?

3) Are the conference, journal and workshop papers and books listed at
<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/index_html/research> easily and immediately
available?

-- underlying wishes: hyperlinks, open access (OA).

4) How will the analyses of (say) FLOSSMetrics be superior to the statistics
of (say) Ohloh?

-- underlying assumptions: apples and oranges, statistical discrepancies;
<http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>.

5) After funding for Flossquality projects ends, how long will it be before
another round of surveys and analysis?

-- underlying hope: deliverables, methodologies et cetera from the current
projects should be so forward-looking and adaptable that future
projects/champions will positively wish to pick up the baton.

Your answer to (4) might depend upon quality leaders coming forth from
Plone, Zope and other communities ;)

----

Focusing on the highlights at
<http://www.diigo.com/annotated/573bd2866683ab0136353688530ed63f>, in
particular those under the heading 'Standards Compliant' and 'Plays Well
with Others', I take the opinion that playing well is a most critical
aspect.

A system may be compliant, powerful and wildly popular; but if it can not
_not_ easily play well with others, I'll avoid it.

Why avoid?

<http://www.diigo.com/list/Grahamperrin/software-halloween-morass> leads to
a blog entry about 'The Conversation Prism' that visualises, in varying
degrees of complexity, an impressive but dizzying (alarming?) range of
social media.

I have no desire to visualise the 300+ recognised content management
systems, nor to substract (from visualisations of social media and/or CMS)
the products/services that are not open source.

I do take pleasure in knowing that Plone already has, or soon will have, the
USPs/common selling points that people find appealing in other products.

Because we can do so much with Plone -- with certainty -- I'll _avoid_
novelties or popularities that require proliferation (not always with the
same certainty).

---

Visually, I think of (Python -- Zope -- Plone core -- collective/add-ons) as
being very rounded and cohesive.

(Might Plone have fewer add-ons/extensions than other content management
systems? Might statistical analyses of core and collective code bases
suggest innovation/development around Plone is less than around other
products? I have no idea but

Visually, my recollection of Drupal was blockiness. LAMP/MAMP were four
quadrants with less cohesion, less of a big picture. More maintenance. YMMV.

A key distinction:

-- as in the past I added user-requested functionality to Drupal, so it
'felt' (to me) more sprawling

-- as more recently I add user-requested add-on products to Plone, so it
feels more rounded. Playing well :)

----

Veering off-topic from Plone, but on the subject of EU/European
Commission-supported initiatives, the following survey draws my attention:

<http://groups.diigo.com/collaboration/forum/topic/we-value-your-opinion-eu-survey-on-internet-based-collaboration-in-support-of-the-research-process-6471>

EU survey on Internet-based collaboration in support of the research
process

Does that survey have any relation to Flossquality work in progress?

Best regards
Graham

Note to self:
<http://www.diigo.com/list/Grahamperrin/software-halloween-morass>

[Graham Perrin]

From: Gregorio Robles
Date: 12 November 2008 21:17:29 GMT
To: Xavier Heymans
Cc: Graham Perrin
Subject: Re: Plone and QUALOSS - QUALity in Open Source Software
Hi, Xavier (& Graham)

Hola Gregorio,
I've sent info about FlossMetrics on a Plone mailing list. Graham came up
with a number of questions.
Could you provide answers to the questions related to FLossmetrics?

find below my comments to Graham's questions.

Thanks in advance,
Xavier
---

? So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS
Community on these topics. ? I would like to know if we could find some
"quality leaders" within the Plone and Zope community that could become
technical contact points to provide feedback to the researchers.

Glancing at the three projects under the Flossquality umbrella, I guess
that some of the people with whom you wish to make links might hesitate,
1) Will information that I provide to FLOSSMetrics be communicated
appropriately, effectively and in good time to other relevant projects,
in particular QualOSS and SQO-OSS?
? underlying wish: duplication of input/effort should be as close
as?possible to zero.

yes. All the FLOSSMetrics dataset is publicly available (with the
exception of personal-related data like e-mail addresses for which special
agreement is required) and we have close links to the QualOSS (we are part
of that project as well) and SQO-OSS (FLOSSMetrics and SQO-OSS have a
common partners, a Greek university).

2) Can you demonstrate that deliverables of the three projects are being
used effectively? For example, how are SMEs responding to the
guides?<http://flossmetrics.org/sections/deliverables> provided?by
FLOSSMetrics?
? underlying wish: what's in it for us?

hmm... I cannot answer this question directly as I have not been involved
in this part. I know that there are efforts to make the SME guide by
FLOSSMetrics an on-going effort as the CALIBRE project succeeded to create
an industrial forum (called CALIBRATION) that is still active today. But
details should be asked directly to Carlo Daffara, which is the Italian
partner who is in charge of this part.

3) Are the conference, journal and workshop papers and books listed
at?<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/index_html/research> easily and
immediately?available?
? underlying wishes: hyperlinks, open access (OA).

well, that's always problematic. We are targeting conferences and
workshops were publications can be posted on our web site. For journals we
are having more problems, but we are moving in that direction. For
instance, although we have our concerns that this is the right thing to
do, we have payed a recent journal publication to have our paper on Debian
under a CreativeCommons license.
All in all, as Xavier knows, we are very much interested in interacting
with the libre software community and probably journal papers are not
targeted to them (they are boring, academic stuff). So, we arrange the
FOSDEM Research room, have organized several more-community-oriented
seminars and try to bring developers from projects to some
more-academic-oriented workshops (as we have done with Apache recently for
the WoPDaSD).

4) How will the analyses of (say) FLOSSMetrics be superior to the
statistics of (say) Ohloh?
? underlying assumptions: apples and oranges, statistical
discrepancies;?<http://n2.nabble.com/-tp1387483p1387483.html>.

the superiority lies mainly in the fact that the whole process in
FLOSSMetrics will run transparently as we are used in the free software
world, in the sense that all the machinery is licensed under a free
software license and can be downloaded and run independently. Patches can
be submitted, comments are welcome, pointing out errors will be easier. On
the other hand, data sources will be provided in multiple fashions: raw
and final/combined. Oloh only provides final/combined metrics.
All in all, Oloh is at this time a year ahead of our efforts, but we are
making the gap smaller.

5) After funding for Flossquality projects ends, how long will it be
before another round of surveys and analysis?
? underlying hope: deliverables, methodologies et cetera from the current
projects should be so forward-looking and adaptable that future
projects/champions will positively wish to pick up the baton.

well, we have had much interest in this before FLOSSMetrics (I started
working on this in 2002!) and will still work on this after FLOSSMetrics.
After all this is our research line and not only a project funded by the
European Commission.
regards, Gregorio
p.s. I'm cutting here as I guess the rest of the message has nothing to?do
with me. Correct me if I'm wrong,
?
Gregorio Robles ??????????| GSyC/LibreSoft Research Lab
http://libresoft.es/grex/ | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

[Graham Perrin]

Glancing at <http://melquiades.flossmetrics.org/projects/plone>, are the
graphs etc. about right?

[Graham Perrin]

Glancing at <http://melquiades.flossmetrics.org/projects/plone>, are the
graphs etc. about right?

[Graham Perrin]

From: Gregorio Robles
Date: 12 November 2008 21:17:29 GMT
To: Xavier Heymans
Cc: Graham Perrin
Subject: Re: Plone and QUALOSS - QUALity in Open Source Software
Hi, Xavier (& Graham)

Hola Gregorio,
I've sent info about FlossMetrics on a Plone mailing list. Graham came up
with a number of questions.
Could you provide answers to the questions related to FLossmetrics?

find below my comments to Graham's questions.

Thanks in advance,
Xavier
---

? So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS
Community on these topics. ? I would like to know if we could find some
"quality leaders" within the Plone and Zope community that could become
technical contact points to provide feedback to the researchers.

Glancing at the three projects under the Flossquality umbrella, I guess
that some of the people with whom you wish to make links might hesitate,
1) Will information that I provide to FLOSSMetrics be communicated
appropriately, effectively and in good time to other relevant projects,
in particular QualOSS and SQO-OSS?
? underlying wish: duplication of input/effort should be as close
as?possible to zero.

yes. All the FLOSSMetrics dataset is publicly available (with the
exception of personal-related data like e-mail addresses for which special
agreement is required) and we have close links to the QualOSS (we are part
of that project as well) and SQO-OSS (FLOSSMetrics and SQO-OSS have a
common partners, a Greek university).

2) Can you demonstrate that deliverables of the three projects are being
used effectively? For example, how are SMEs responding to the
guides?<http://flossmetrics.org/sections/deliverables> provided?by
FLOSSMetrics?
? underlying wish: what's in it for us?

hmm... I cannot answer this question directly as I have not been involved
in this part. I know that there are efforts to make the SME guide by
FLOSSMetrics an on-going effort as the CALIBRE project succeeded to create
an industrial forum (called CALIBRATION) that is still active today. But
details should be asked directly to Carlo Daffara, which is the Italian
partner who is in charge of this part.

3) Are the conference, journal and workshop papers and books listed
at?<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/index_html/research> easily and
immediately?available?
? underlying wishes: hyperlinks, open access (OA).

well, that's always problematic. We are targeting conferences and
workshops were publications can be posted on our web site. For journals we
are having more problems, but we are moving in that direction. For
instance, although we have our concerns that this is the right thing to
do, we have payed a recent journal publication to have our paper on Debian
under a CreativeCommons license.
All in all, as Xavier knows, we are very much interested in interacting
with the libre software community and probably journal papers are not
targeted to them (they are boring, academic stuff). So, we arrange the
FOSDEM Research room, have organized several more-community-oriented
seminars and try to bring developers from projects to some
more-academic-oriented workshops (as we have done with Apache recently for
the WoPDaSD).

4) How will the analyses of (say) FLOSSMetrics be superior to the
statistics of (say) Ohloh?
? underlying assumptions: apples and oranges, statistical
discrepancies;?<http://n2.nabble.com/-tp1387483p1387483.html>.

the superiority lies mainly in the fact that the whole process in
FLOSSMetrics will run transparently as we are used in the free software
world, in the sense that all the machinery is licensed under a free
software license and can be downloaded and run independently. Patches can
be submitted, comments are welcome, pointing out errors will be easier. On
the other hand, data sources will be provided in multiple fashions: raw
and final/combined. Oloh only provides final/combined metrics.
All in all, Oloh is at this time a year ahead of our efforts, but we are
making the gap smaller.

5) After funding for Flossquality projects ends, how long will it be
before another round of surveys and analysis?
? underlying hope: deliverables, methodologies et cetera from the current
projects should be so forward-looking and adaptable that future
projects/champions will positively wish to pick up the baton.

well, we have had much interest in this before FLOSSMetrics (I started
working on this in 2002!) and will still work on this after FLOSSMetrics.
After all this is our research line and not only a project funded by the
European Commission.
regards, Gregorio
p.s. I'm cutting here as I guess the rest of the message has nothing to?do
with me. Correct me if I'm wrong,
?
Gregorio Robles ??????????| GSyC/LibreSoft Research Lab
http://libresoft.es/grex/ | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

[Graham Perrin]

http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system ?

Thanks, Xavier. We find Plone, Python and Zope at
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/1095/>
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/30/>
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/57/>

Veering a little off-topic:
<http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system/status/1/> could be of interest if
we consider Plone interactions with OpenOffice.org.

That thought, spurred by the recent announcement re: SharePoint and
Confluence; amongst the highlights at
<http://groups.diigo.com/search?group_name=collaboration&what=h%3ASharePoint>
the comments concerning support are noteworthy.

[Graham Perrin]

??So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS
Community on these topics. ? I would like to know if we could find some
"quality leaders" within the Plone and Zope community that could become
technical contact points to provide feedback to the researchers.

Glancing at the three projects under the Flossquality umbrella, I guess that
some of the people with whom you wish to make links might hesitate, with
thoughts such as these:

1) Will information that I provide to FLOSSMetrics be communicated
appropriately, effectively and in good time to other relevant projects, in
particular QualOSS and SQO-OSS?

-- underlying wish: duplication of input/effort should be as close as
possible to zero.

2) Can you demonstrate that deliverables of the three projects are being
used effectively? For example, how are SMEs responding to the guides
<http://flossmetrics.org/sections/deliverables> provided by FLOSSMetrics?

-- underlying wish: what's in it for us?

3) Are the conference, journal and workshop papers and books listed at
<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/index_html/research> easily and immediately
available?

-- underlying wishes: hyperlinks, open access (OA).

4) How will the analyses of (say) FLOSSMetrics be superior to the statistics
of (say) Ohloh?

-- underlying assumptions: apples and oranges, statistical discrepancies;
<http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>.

5) After funding for Flossquality projects ends, how long will it be before
another round of surveys and analysis?

-- underlying hope: deliverables, methodologies et cetera from the current
projects should be so forward-looking and adaptable that future
projects/champions will positively wish to pick up the baton.

Your answer to (4) might depend upon quality leaders coming forth from
Plone, Zope and other communities ;)

----

Focusing on the highlights at
<http://www.diigo.com/annotated/573bd2866683ab0136353688530ed63f>, in
particular those under the heading 'Standards Compliant' and 'Plays Well
with Others', I take the opinion that playing well is a most critical
aspect.

A system may be compliant, powerful and wildly popular; but if it can not
_not_ easily play well with others, I'll avoid it.

Why avoid?

<http://www.diigo.com/list/Grahamperrin/software-halloween-morass> leads to
a blog entry about 'The Conversation Prism' that visualises, in varying
degrees of complexity, an impressive but dizzying (alarming?) range of
social media.

I have no desire to visualise the 300+ recognised content management
systems, nor to substract (from visualisations of social media and/or CMS)
the products/services that are not open source.

I do take pleasure in knowing that Plone already has, or soon will have, the
USPs/common selling points that people find appealing in other products.

Because we can do so much with Plone -- with certainty -- I'll _avoid_
novelties or popularities that require proliferation (not always with the
same certainty).

---

Visually, I think of (Python -- Zope -- Plone core -- collective/add-ons) as
being very rounded and cohesive.

(Might Plone have fewer add-ons/extensions than other content management
systems? Might statistical analyses of core and collective code bases
suggest innovation/development around Plone is less than around other
products? I have no idea but

Visually, my recollection of Drupal was blockiness. LAMP/MAMP were four
quadrants with less cohesion, less of a big picture. More maintenance. YMMV.

A key distinction:

-- as in the past I added user-requested functionality to Drupal, so it
'felt' (to me) more sprawling

-- as more recently I add user-requested add-on products to Plone, so it
feels more rounded. Playing well :)

----

Veering off-topic from Plone, but on the subject of EU/European
Commission-supported initiatives, the following survey draws my attention:

<http://groups.diigo.com/collaboration/forum/topic/we-value-your-opinion-eu-survey-on-internet-based-collaboration-in-support-of-the-research-process-6471>

EU survey on Internet-based collaboration in support of the research
process

Does that survey have any relation to Flossquality work in progress?

Best regards
Graham

Note to self:
<http://www.diigo.com/list/Grahamperrin/software-halloween-morass>

[Graham Perrin]

EU Research investigates the Quality and Socioeconomic aspects of Free
Libre Open Source Software

The thirty-month QUALOSS project is scheduled to end around March 2009.

I wonder what the quality measurements of Plone will be.

Personally, I think that Plone excels in many areas. The recent swarm views
of things are testaments to openness and innovation, both flourishing in and
around the quality requirements and long-term planning of Plone core.

References:

QUALOSS
QUALity in Open Source Software
<http://www.qualoss.org/>
<http://www.qualoss.org/about>

OpenBRR
Business Readiness Rating? (BRR)
<http://www.openbrr.org/>

Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS)
<http://qsos.org/>

<http://www.qualoss.org/dissemination/comparing-assessment-methodologies-for-free-open-source>
(June 2008) and the related PDF (sixteen pages).

<http://n2.nabble.com/RDF-and-Researchers-tp362574p362578.html> (May 2007)

<http://n2.nabble.com/3-research-projects-investigating-open-source-software-quality-launch-a-join-portal-tp362581p362581.html>
(June 2007)

Flossquality - Open source quality research
<http://flossquality.eu/>

SQO-OSS
Software Quality Observatory for Open Source Software
<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/>

FLOSSMetrics
Free/Libre Open Source Software Metrics
<http://www.flossmetrics.org/>

<http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>
(October 2008)

----

That at least four of the sites referenced above are Plone-powered should be
no surprise;
<http://www.zeapartners.org/articles/collaborative-research006>

explains how collaborative software as Plone brings outstanding benefits
to EU research projects.

and by pleasant coincidence, earlier this week I prepared Plone site for a
five-nation six-partner EU project :)

Regards

Graham Perrin, Project/Media Development Officer
CENTRIM - the Centre for Research in Innovation Management
<http://www.brighton.ac.uk/centrim/graham>
[phone]

[Xavier Heymans]

Hi,

Zea Partners is involved in Qualoss and Flossmetrics. We also have
established a close collaboration with other EU research projects.

Very soon, Plone going to be added to projects analyzed by Flossmetrics:
http://fm3.libresoft.es/retrieval_system

So far, it has been very difficult to establish a link with the OS
Community on these topics. In 2009, I would like to organize a
validation workshop that would involve researchers (who would present
the data they can extract from the Plone/Zope repositories) and
community experts to be found (that could provide feedback on the
quality and interpretation of the data extracted. Before this, I
would like to know if we could find some "quality leaders" within the
Plone and Zope community that could become technical contact points
to provide feedback to the researchers.

All the best,

Xavier


More
-------
A number of articles related to EU activities are published here:
www.zeapartners.org/eu

Among the articles presenting awards:
http://www.zeapartners.org/awards/en

you will find:
Plone: Best IST research project website
http://www.zeapartners.org/awards/en/best-ist-project-website-award
====================

Post by Graham Perrin

EU Research investigates the Quality and Socioeconomic aspects of Free
Libre Open Source Software

The thirty-month QUALOSS project is scheduled to end around March 2009.

We are currently negotiating an extension of 6 to 9 months.

Post by Graham Perrin
I wonder what the quality measurements of Plone will be.
Personally, I think that Plone excels in many areas. The recent swarm views
of things are testaments to openness and innovation, both
flourishing in and
around the quality requirements and long-term planning of Plone core.
QUALOSS
QUALity in Open Source Software
<http://www.qualoss.org/>
<http://www.qualoss.org/about>
OpenBRR
Business Readiness Rating? (BRR)
<http://www.openbrr.org/>
Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS)
<http://qsos.org/>
<http://www.qualoss.org/dissemination/comparing-assessment-
methodologies-for-free-open-source>
(June 2008) and the related PDF (sixteen pages).
<http://n2.nabble.com/RDF-and-Researchers-tp362574p362578.html> (May 2007)
<http://n2.nabble.com/3-research-projects-investigating-open-source-
software-quality-launch-a-join-portal-tp362581p362581.html>
(June 2007)
Flossquality - Open source quality research
<http://flossquality.eu/>
SQO-OSS
Software Quality Observatory for Open Source Software
<http://www.sqo-oss.eu/>
FLOSSMetrics
Free/Libre Open Source Software Metrics
<http://www.flossmetrics.org/>
<http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-code-swarm---275-code-contributors---
more-than-Drupal-and-Joomla-combined-tp1387483p1387483.html>
(October 2008)
----
That at least four of the sites referenced above are Plone-powered should be
no surprise;
<http://www.zeapartners.org/articles/collaborative-research006>

explains how collaborative software as Plone brings outstanding benefits
to EU research projects.

and by pleasant coincidence, earlier this week I prepared Plone site for a
five-nation six-partner EU project :)
Regards
Graham Perrin, Project/Media Development Officer
CENTRIM - the Centre for Research in Innovation Management
<http://www.brighton.ac.uk/centrim/graham>
[phone]
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Plone-and-
QUALOSS---QUALity-in-Open-Source-Software-tp1402419p1402419.html
Sent from the Evangelism mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Evangelism mailing list
Evangelism at lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism