|
|
|
|
| Intrinsic durability |
|
9 / 33 |
| Industrial solutions |
|
|
3 / 15 |
| Strategy |
|
|
0 / 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheet: Possible label: Silver
Stats:
Mandatory 9 / 9,
Recommended 0 / 17,
Free 4 / 48
|
|
|
Assenssment: Possible label: None
Stats:
Durability: 9 / 33,
Industrial: 3 / 15,
Strategy: 0 / 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
Less than 6 months
|
|
Stability
|
|
Stabilized production release existing but old. Difficulties to stabilize development releases
|
|
History, known problems
|
|
No known major problem or crisis
|
|
Popularity (at its scale)
|
|
Very few users identified
|
|
References
|
|
None
|
|
Contributing community
|
|
Strong community: big activity on forums, numerous contributors and advocates
|
|
Books
|
|
No book about the software
|
|
Developers identification and turnover
|
|
>7 developers, clearly identified, very stable team
|
|
Activity on bugs
|
|
Detectable activity but without process clearly exposed, long reaction/resolution time
|
|
Activity on releases
|
|
Important activity with frequent minor releases (bugs fixes) and planned major releases relating to the roadmap forecast
|
|
Independence of developments
|
|
Developments realized at 100% by employees of a single company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Training
|
|
No offer of training identified
|
|
Support
|
|
Offer exists but is provided by a single contractor without strong commitment quality of services
|
|
Consulting
|
|
No offer of consulting service
|
|
Documentation
|
|
Documentation always up to date, translated and possibly adapted to different target readers (end user, sysadmin, manager, ?)
|
|
Tools
|
|
No bug or feature request management tool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roadmap
|
|
No published roadmap
|
|
Sponsorship
|
|
|
|
Strategic independence
|
|
No detectable strategy or strong dependency on one unique actor (person, company, sponsor...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
