Kevin Lumbard

For some reason, I thought we had already addressed this one. Thanks for bringing this up @geekygirldawn. The name is definitely problematic and agree pony factor isn't good option either....

...or Core Contributor Risk. We have defined Occasional Contributors ( which was previously problematic as "Drive-by Contributors"). However, we have not defined key or core contributors. Academic literature usually uses...

In truth, without explanation, any name we choose is likely to be nonsensical. Some are more descriptive than others though. The metric should describe what we are trying to measure...

Also, I think value judgement is going to necessary for this metric. What the value is the question? Is it related to 'ownership/authorship of a percentage of the codebase?

If it is about percentage of codebase, rather than contributor, maybe we need it to be about contribution authorship. For example, Majority Contribution Authorship, Majority Contribution Spread, or Majority Contribution...

Adoption may be better for Disaster Factor because it is close enough to the previous problematic name. It also signals the risk part. I think that could work.

Disaster Factor = The risk associated with a count of contributors, who authored a majority of contributions in the project for some time window, abandoning a project. It is probably...

Name change revision - From "reviews to "change request"

closing for release

The markdown file needs the disclaimer added in Italics under the question - _This metric is a release candidate The 30 day comment period for this metric begins on xx/xx/xxxx...