# A Contribution Metric Should Let Each Team Define What Counts ## Claim A contribution-metrics tool serves a diverse community better when each subteam can configure what counts as progress rather than inheriting one fixed, project-wide definition. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Holds when the subteams genuinely differ in what contribution looks like (a translation approved versus a forum reply answered versus a patch merged) — forcing a single metric in that situation measures the wrong thing for most teams most of the time. - Breaks down if configurability goes so far that no shared signal remains comparable across teams — a project still needs *some* common language (e.g., "active" vs. "at risk" as a shared vocabulary) even while the underlying thresholds vary. - The configuration itself needs to be visible and shareable (not siloed in one person's head) or the flexibility just relocates the "who defines contribution" ambiguity rather than resolving it. ## Evidence The WordPress Contributor Dashboard's Ladder view models contributor progression as a funnel (Connect → Contribute → Engage → Perform) but lets any team rename stages, reorder them, or adjust thresholds — because, as the project post states, "a translation approved matters to Polyglots, while Support measures engagement differently." The customized configuration is encoded directly in the URL, so a team's specific definition becomes a shareable artifact rather than a private spreadsheet. ## Links - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/A Contribution Pipeline Needs a Defined Next Step After Training]] — because applies-in; a configurable ladder is one concrete way to make the "next step" this note calls for visible and team-specific rather than generic. - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Casual Contributors Are Users Not Community Members]] — because extends; a ladder with configurable stages is a mechanism for operationalizing the user-versus-member distinction per team. - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Open Source Governance MOC]] — because applies-in; letting teams self-define success is a governance-design choice, not just a UI feature. - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Builders Partners and Customers Need Separate Funnels Because They Make Different Decisions]] — has evidence from: one blended engagement number hides three decisions (Morrow). - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/A Shared End-of-Session Check Makes Every Teaching Format Comparable]] — contrasts: one shared check makes workshop, webinar and booth results comparable without changing content (Lord). ## Tests / falsifiers - Compare contributor-health tracking behavior between teams that build a custom ladder versus teams using the unmodified default — if custom-ladder teams show no measurable difference in how actively they monitor contributor health, the configurability isn't earning its complexity. - Would be weakened by evidence that configurability fragments cross-team comparison so badly that project leadership can no longer answer basic aggregate questions ("how many active contributors does the project have") without reconciling incompatible definitions. ## Maintenance - Last tended: 2026-08-16 - Next review: 2026-11-16 ## Source - [[3. Resources/Literature Notes/WordPress Contributor Dashboard - New Views, Custom Ladder, and More]] — the Ladder view's customization design and its stated Polyglots/Support rationale.