Project Evaluation Activity V1

Project Evaluation

Preparation:

Description	Learners will gain an understanding of the breadth of available FOSS projects. Learners will also gain an understanding of the identifying characteristics of FOSS projects including pattern of contributions, patterns of commits, programming languages used, and more.
Source
Prerequisite Knowledge	Completion of Browsing a Forge Activity or understanding of SourceForge and Ohloh; Understanding of course in which students will be participating in an HFOSS project.
Estimated Time to Completion	60-90 minutes
Learning Objectives	Ability to: 1)Utilize the rubric to identify likely HFOSS projects.
Materials/Environment	SIGCSE paper Access to Internet/Web and web browser.
Additional Information	Lists of projects
Rights	Licensed CC BY-SA

Background:

This 8 minute video gives you an overview of rubric and how it is used.

[ Watch the video.]

Directions:

Part 1-Evaluate Mission Critical Criteria

Evaluate Viability

1. Size/Scale/Complexity
   1. Go to Ohloh.net, type Mifos into the Search Projects box, Click on Mifos to see the Project Summary page
   2. Scroll down to the Community area and calculate the average number of contributors in the last month. The average was 9 so it passed the minimum average number of contributors metric of 6.
   3. Go to the Mifos web page and choose Tech Overview from the Contributors tab. From examination of the technology stack, the architecture looks modular and further search shows it is documented elsewhere on the site.
   4. Result-Based on the modular design and meeting the minimum average number of contributors metric, the project is scored a 2 for size/scale/complexity.
2. Activity
   1. Return to the Mifos project summary page in Ohloh. Scroll to the Activity area on the page.
   2. Compute the 12-month average of commits. The 12-month average was about 108, above the minimum average level of commits recommended for activity.
   3. Result-Because commits exceed the favorable level of activity for this project it may be a little large/complex. However, still appears manageable, the project is score a 2 for activity.
3. Community
   1. Examine download activity
      1. Go to Sourceforge.net and enter Mifos into the search box.
      2. Choose Mifos-Microfinance Open Source from the search results.
      3. Click on the number of downloads that is listed on the project page.
      4. Change the date range to give a graph of downloads over the last year.
   2. Examine mailing list activity.
      1. Return to the Mifos web page. From the Contributor tab choose the Join the Mailing List link to get access to the project mailing list.
      2. Once granted access, examine the Developer mailing list for activity.
   3. Examine the IRC channel
      1. Again from the Contributor tab on the Mifos web page, choose the IRC link.
      2. Examine the IRC channel for activity.
   4. Result-Downloads appear steady so the project has a community of users. Developers are responsive on mailing list and developers have a presence on IRC. Project is scored a 3.

Evaluate Approachability

Here you are evaluating a project's on-ramp to contribution, scoring as follows:

1-Insufficient-Few or no pointers on how to become involved.

2-Sufficient-Suggestions about how to get involved other than contributing money with accompanying high-level instructions.

3-Ideal-Obvious link to get started, list of suggestions for things to do and detailed instructions.

1. Link to get started-From the Contributors tab on the Mifos web page there is a Get Started page with links to what Mifos is, how to contribute, community processes, and tools used.
2. List of suggestions for things to do - Clicking the Get Involved link on the Get Started page provides a list of ways to contribute including testing, translation, development and documentation. There is also a volunteer bug queue listed as a good way for developers to get started.
3. Detailed instructions-Instructions are provided in many areas including process, architecture, licensing, product functionality, and developer documentation.
4. Result-Was scored a 3.

Evaluate Suitability

1. Appropriate Artifacts -Since evaluation is dependent on class objectives, in this example we'll assume an objective is to learn the process of working in authentic development project through contributing bug fixes.
   1. Opportunities to contribute bug fixes - Examined the volunteer bite-sized bug queue accessible from the Volunteer page under the Contributors tab on the Mifos web page. There were 10 open bugs for new contributors. There were many more listed for more experienced contributors.
   2. Documentation on how to contribute bug fixes - From the Tech Overview page accessible from the Contributors tab on the web site there is a link to details on the code submission process.
   3. Result - May score a 2 or 3, depends on number of bugs and class size.
2. Contributor Support-Does the project have a high volume of guidance to help students as they learn?
   1. Are communication tools documented?-
   2. Do developers have a web presence?-
   3. Are operating processed documented?-
   4. Do questions posed have timely and supportive answers?-

Part 2-Evaluate Secondary Criteria

Evaluate Viability

1. Domain
2. Maturity
3. User Support
4. Roadmap

Evaluate Approachability

1. Contribution Types
2. Openness to Contributions
3. Student Friendliness

Evaluate Suitability

1. Project Description
2. Platform
3. Development Features