It's hard to say, really, on such a silly subjective scale. Especially when people are bad at communicating what they've done, what they are working on on the forums and on #osdev. I tend to randomly rant in #osdev about what stuff I'm doing, especially if I encounter something I don't like. I understand there are many osdevers that quite simply don't need to talk that much about their accomplishments, or no longer are that active community members. It makes it hard to compare yourself.
A useful measurement is whether someone is self-hosting, and the various degrees of it:
- Not self-hosting.
- Able to compile small programs under your OS.
- Able to build your OS under itself. (Self-building)
- Able to build your OS under itself on real hardware, reboot, and the new version boots and is capable of the same. (Self-hosting)
- Self-hosting, and able to also build all third party software ports under your OS.
- You actually prefer developing under your OS rather than cross-developing. (Actually self-hosting).
Presently, I'm at the self-hosting stage where I am capable of building some, not all yet, ports under my OS.
Based on how the amount of stuff I've ported and the strength of my user-land, and on what I've seen over's do, I'd rate myself highly on a 0-10 scale. But that's just part of the picture, for instance, my kernel is of lower quality and has some issues, and my drivers aren't that well written, so that would get a much worse score.
I'm interested in how this stuff can be objectionably quantified. Stuff like code quality, appropriate use of hardware features, security, amount of code, how many contributors, how many users, how respected in the osdev community, how readable, how documented, that kind of thing. I think achievements are generally informative of how well someone are doing at osdev.