Quim Gil <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Assignee|            |

--- Comment #4 from Quim Gil <> ---
The tables and graphs are now considered ready:

We are still missing better strings, but this is a task for me. I'm taking the
bug. Help / patches welcome.

(In reply to Nemo from comment #3)
> The first table is rather straightforward, I've not really tried to
> understand/analyse the second table and the graph.

The second table show contributors that haven't submitted any patch in the last
6 months. I'm not especially happy about the results it shows, but we can fine
tune them, and file separate enhancement requests. Is 6 months a too long
period (when we identify them, they are long gone)? Should reviews and comments
also be counted (maybe someone hasn't upload a new changeset in 6 months, but
they are reviewing others'patches regularly)?

Similar thoughts with the graph: it's a good first step, but we can probably
improve it. The idea is to show the intake of new contributrs vs the
established community; we want to see that we are not stagnant, and hopefully
having a healthy trend of newcomers. Should we count only the last 12 months to
have a fresher and more dynamic picture of the new contributors versus the
established ones? Should we add a line for the number of contributors with more
than 10 patches? Should we use a cumulative graph, like "How is the weight of
the WMF evolving?" at ? Separate
enhancement requests are welcome.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to